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 .
Claims 1 thru 20 have been examined.
Specification
The use of the terms SPARKLINK, BLUETOOTH and ZIGBEE (P[0065]), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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.
Claims 1 1hru 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 7 is directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 7 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 13 is directed to a computer product comprising computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and executed by a processor (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claim 13 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
obtaining a preset condition that a vehicle should meet to enable a vehicle function on a target road section, wherein the preset condition comprises a preset element and a requirement description of the preset element;
collecting a current status of the preset element at a preset frequency to obtain a plurality of current statuses;
determining a result based on the plurality of current statuses; and
adjusting the preset frequency based on the result-obtained by the collecting.
The above underlined limitation constitutes “a mental process” because it is an observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could obtain a condition that a vehicle should meet for different road sections, determine a result from collected information, and change the interval for collecting the information. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 13 recite the same steps of the method of claim 1, and thus also recite at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
A method comprising:
obtaining a preset condition that a vehicle should meet to enable a vehicle function on a target road section, wherein the preset condition comprises a preset element and a requirement description of the preset element;
collecting a current status of the preset element at a preset frequency to obtain a plurality of current statuses (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
determining a result based on the plurality of current statuses; and
adjusting the preset frequency based on the result-obtained by the collecting.
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of collecting a current status of the preset element at a preset frequency to obtain a plurality of current statuses, this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Similarly, claim 7 recites, An apparatus, comprising: a memory configured to store instructions (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and one or more processors coupled to the memory (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to: [perform the method of claim 1] (see above).
Regarding the additional limitations of a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the memory, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of collecting current statuses of the preset element at a preset frequency to obtain a plurality of current statuses, this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 7 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 7 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Similarly, claim 13 recites, A computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and that, when executed by one or more processors of an apparatus (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), cause the apparatus to: [perform the method of claim 1] (see above).
Regarding the additional limitation of computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and executed by one or more processors of an apparatus; this limitation amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of collecting current statuses of the preset element at a preset frequency to obtain a plurality of current statuses, this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 13 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 13 is directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1, 7, and 13 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, the additional limitations of a memory configured to store instructions, one or more processors coupled to the memory; and computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and that, when executed by one or more processors of an apparatus, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of collecting a current status of the preset element at a preset frequency to obtain a plurality of current statuses, this additional limitation has been reevaluated, and it has been determined that such a limitation is not unconventional as it merely consists of data gathering which is recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Further, adding a preliminary step of gathering data to a process that only recites obtaining conditions that a vehicle should meet for a road section, determining results and adjusting how often the information gathering takes place (a mental process) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g).
The dependent claims 2 thru 6, 8 thru 12 and 14 thru 20 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims are directed to:
Claims 2, 8 and 14 - the vehicle function is an automated driving function or an assisted driving function. Defining the vehicle function.
Claims 3 and 9 - the preset condition is an operational design condition (ODC) or an operational design domain (ODD). Defining the preset condition.
Claims 4 and 10 - the result indicates a quantity of times a status of the preset element changes in a unit time, or indicates a priority of the preset element. Defining the result.
Claims 5, 11 and 19 - the preset element comprises a first element and a second element, wherein the preset frequency comprises a first frequency and a second frequency that are different, wherein collecting the current status of the preset element at the preset frequency comprises: collecting the current status of the first element at the first frequency; and collecting the current status of the second element at the second frequency (extra-solution activity (data gathering), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claims 6, 12 and 20 - adjusting the preset frequency based on the result comprises sending adjustment information that indicates to adjust the preset frequency based on the result (extra-solution activity (data outputting), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and wherein the adjustment information comprises the result.
Claim 15 - the preset condition is an operational design condition (ODC). Defining the preset condition.
Claim 16 - the preset condition is an operational design domain (ODD). Defining the preset condition.
Claim 17 - the result indicates a quantity of times a status of the preset element changes in a unit time. Defining the result.
Claim 18 - the result indicates a priority of the preset element. Defining the result.
These limitations are extra-solution activity, or part of the abstract idea. They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1 thru 3, 5 thru 9, 11 thru 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al WIPO/PCT Publication Number WO 2021/103511 A1 (translation cited) in view of Yu et al European Patent Application Publication Number EP 3 792 882 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 13 Liu et al teach the claimed method, “a method and related equipment for determining the ODD of the design operation area, which can determine whether the automatic driving system is in the ODD of the design operation area” (translation page 3 paragraph 2), the claimed apparatus, a device 21 according to the ODD judgment apparatus (Figure 21), and the claimed computer product with executable instructions stored in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium executed by processor(s) of an apparatus, “The computer system 226 may include at least one processor that executes instructions stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium such as a data storage device. The computer system 226 may also be multiple computing devices that control individual components or subsystems of the vehicle 22 in a distributed manner.” (translation page 32 paragraph 2), and “The processor 2101 may be a general-purpose central processing unit (CPU), a microprocessor, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or one or more integrated circuits for controlling the execution of the above program programs.” (translation page 29 paragraph 5), the apparatus comprising:
the claimed memory to store instructions, “The device 21 includes at least one processor 2101, at least one memory 2102, and at least one communication interface 2103.” (translation page 29 paragraph 4), and “The memory 2102 may be a read-only memory (ROM) or other types of static storage devices that can store static information and instructions, a random access memory (RAM), or other types that can store information and instructions.” (translation page 29 paragraph 7); and
the claimed one or more processors coupled to the memory executes the instructions, “The device 21 includes at least one processor 2101, at least one memory 2102, and at least one communication interface 2103.” (translation page 29 paragraph 4), and “The processor 2101 may be a general-purpose central processing unit (CPU), a microprocessor, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or one or more integrated circuits for controlling the execution of the above program programs.” (translation page 29 paragraph 6), the method comprising, and to cause the apparatus to:
the claimed obtaining a preset condition that a vehicle should meet to enable a vehicle function on a target road section, “Step S501: Determine the ODD of the automatic driving system on the target road section.” (translation page 16 paragraph 7 and Figure 5), the automatic driving for the target road section equates to the claimed vehicle function on a target road section, wherein
the claimed preset condition comprises a preset element and a requirement description of the preset element, “determine the ODD of the vehicle's automatic driving system on the target road section. The first parameter set corresponding to the ODD includes a first environmental parameter set, and/or a first operating parameter set of the automatic driving system; wherein, the first environmental parameter set is that the automatic driving system is operating at the target A collection of environmental parameters required for the normal operation of a road section; the first operating parameter set refers to a collection of operating parameters required for the normal operation of the vehicle/automatic driving system on the target road section. For example, the first environmental parameter set is that the light intensity is greater than 1000 lx, the road width is greater than 5 meters, and the lane line may include pedestrians and cyclists; the first operating parameter set corresponding to the target road section includes a vehicle speed of less than 100km/h.” (translation page 16 paragraph 8), and “the acquiring the second parameter set includes: acquiring the elements and the elements in the second parameter set through a sensor of the vehicle, or the roadside unit, or the cloud platform The value corresponding to the element (for example, the roadside speed limit sign is obtained through a sensor, and the speed limit sign requires a speed not to exceed 60km/h); or, the vehicle’s sensor, or roadside unit, or cloud platform is used to obtain the Describe the elements in the second parameter set (there are pedestrians, cyclists). For example, the roadside unit installs sensors to detect road object information, such as pedestrians, and sends this information to the automated driving system.” (translation page 17 paragraph 8);
the claimed collecting a current status of the preset element at a [preset frequency] to obtain a plurality of current statuses, “Vehicle to X (V2X), is the key technology of the intelligent transportation system, which makes the vehicle and the vehicle, the vehicle and the base station, the vehicle and the roadside unit, and the vehicle and the vehicle The cloud, cars and pedestrians can communicate with each other. In order to obtain a series of traffic information such as real-time road conditions, road information, and pedestrian information. Through the V2X system, the autopilot system can obtain richer real-time data, which can be used for real-time traffic information analysis and optimal driving route selection. In addition, it can also provide important input for the ODD determination of the autonomous driving system. For example, the vehicle receives relevant information released by authoritative departments such as traffic and weather, or the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) releases relevant authoritative V2X information to the attributable vehicle to assist it in ODD determination.” (translation paragraph bridging pages 12 and 13); and
the claimed determining a result based on the plurality of current statuses, “as shown in Figure 7, the speed limit of road section 2 is 60km/h, and at this time (that is, at time T1), the vehicle It is driving at 50km/h, and the vehicle reads the preset ODD of the road section based on its own positioning, and determines that the maximum speed of the vehicle in the current road section 1 ODD is 55km/h. Then the automatic driving system determines that it is within the ODD range of the road section.” (translation page 20 paragraph 2), and “as shown in Figure 8, there is a speed limit sign 60 (ie, object information) on the side of road section 2. At T1, the vehicle automatic driving system collects the speed limit sign 60 on the roadside through image sensors such as on-board cameras, and successfully recognizes the speed limit sign. After that, the vehicle reads the preset ODD of the road section (for example, the roadside sign is allowed) in combination with its own positioning, and determines that the speed limit sign is allowed in the current road section 1, and the automatic driving system determines that it is within the ODD range of the road section.” (translation page 20 paragraph 3).
Liu et al do not teach the claimed collecting current status at a preset frequency, but Liu et al do teach that statuses are collected in real time (see above rejection of the claimed collecting). Additionally, Liu et al do not teach the claimed adjusting the preset frequency based on the result.
Yu et al teach,
the claimed collecting current status at a preset frequency, “determining whether a preset stable driving condition is met based on acquired driving scene data of the driving scene where the vehicle is currently located, and acquired driving behavior data” (P[0041] and Figure 1), and “The preset sampling frequency may be a frequency which is preset and may meet demands for acquiring diving scene data and driving behavior data under various driving scenes and driving behavior modes. A magnitude of a value of the preset sampling frequency may be set according to an empirical value, or may be adjusted uniformly according to actual needs.” P[0042]; and
the claimed adjusting the preset frequency based on the result, “if the preset stable driving condition is met, acquiring the driving scene data and the driving behavior data at a frequency lower than a preset sampling frequency” (P[0042] and Figures 1 and 2).
The preset sampling frequency and the lowering of the preset sampling frequency of Yu et al would be applied to Liu et al as part of the information gathering of the system. Instead of updating the information in real-time, the information would be updated at intervals (the preset sampling frequency of Yu et al). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the operational design domain (ODD) determination method, apparatus and device of Liu et al with the lowering of the preset sampling frequency for stable driving conditions of Yu et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce data redundancy, reduce the amount of data, reduce occupation of the storage resources and transmission resources, and facilitate subsequent analysis (Yu et al abstract).
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 14 Liu et al and Yu et al teach the claimed method, apparatus and computer program product (see above claims 1, 7 and 13), Liu et al teach the claimed vehicle function is an automated driving function or an assisted driving function, “determine whether the automatic driving system is in the ODD of the design operation area” (translation page 3 paragraph 2), and “the second operating parameter set is a set of operating parameters of the automatic driving system on the target road section” (translation page 3 paragraph 5).
Regarding claims 3 and 9 Liu et al and Yu et al teach the claimed method and apparatus (see above claims 1 and 7), Liu et al teach the claimed preset condition is an operational design condition (ODC) or an operational design domain (ODD), “whether the automatic driving system is within an operational design domain (ODD) can be determined” (translation abstract), and “Design operating area (Operational design domain, ODD), also known as design operating range, or design operating condition, refers to the operating conditions under which a certain automatic driving system or automatic driving feature is designed to operate. Popular, that is, the operating conditions of a certain automatic driving function. Exemplarily, the operating conditions may include, but are not limited to, environment, geographic location, time limit, traffic and road characteristics, operating speed, etc.” (translation page 12 paragraph 4).
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 19 Liu et al and Yu et al teach the claimed method, apparatus and computer program product (see above claims 1, 7 and 13), Liu et al teach the claimed preset element comprises a first element and a second element, “The first parameter set corresponding to the ODD includes a first environmental parameter set, and/or a first operating parameter set of the automatic driving system; wherein, the first environmental parameter set is that the automatic driving system is operating at the target A collection of environmental parameters required for the normal operation of a road section; the first operating parameter set refers to a collection of operating parameters required for the normal operation of the vehicle/automatic driving system on the target road section.” (translation page 16 paragraph 8), and “the acquiring the second parameter set includes: acquiring the elements and the elements in the second parameter set through a sensor of the vehicle, or the roadside unit, or the cloud platform The value corresponding to the element (for example, the roadside speed limit sign is obtained through a sensor, and the speed limit sign requires a speed not to exceed 60km/h); or, the vehicle’s sensor, or roadside unit, or cloud platform is used to obtain the Describe the elements in the second parameter set (there are pedestrians, cyclists). For example, the roadside unit installs sensors to detect road object information, such as pedestrians, and sends this information to the automated driving system.” (translation page 17 paragraph 8).
Liu et al do not teach the claimed preset frequency comprises a first frequency and a second frequency that are different, and the collecting the current status of the preset element at the preset frequency comprises the claimed collecting the current status of the first element at the first frequency, and the claimed collecting the second element at the second frequency.
Yu et al teach,
the claimed preset frequency comprises a first frequency and a second frequency that are different, a preset sampling frequency and a frequency lower than a preset sampling frequency P[0042], and wherein the collecting the current status of the preset element at the preset frequency comprises;
the claimed collecting the current status of the first element at the first frequency, and the claimed collecting the second element at the second frequency, “acquiring the driving scene data and the driving behavior data by using different acquisition frequencies according to the driving scenes” P[0039], “at 103, when the driving scene data and driving behavior data are acquired at a preset sampling frequency, the driving scene data may be acquired at a first sampling frequency, and the driving behavior data may be acquired at a second sampling frequency. The magnitude of the first sampling frequency may be the same as or different from that of the second sampling frequency.” (P[0055] and Figure 2), and “The camera, the positioning module, and the inertial measurement unit may acquire data at the same or different frequencies. For example, when the preset stable driving condition is met, the positioning module and the inertial measurement unit may acquire position data and vehicle posture data at a preset third sampling frequency, and the camera may acquire image data at a lower third sampling frequency (lower than the aforementioned preset third sampling frequency) to acquire image data; when the preset stable driving condition is not met, the positioning module and the inertial measurement unit may acquire position data and vehicle posture data at a preset first sampling frequency, and the camera may acquire image data at a lower first sampling frequency (lower than the above-mentioned preset first sampling frequency).” P[0062].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the operational design domain (ODD) determination method, apparatus and device of Liu et al with the lowering of the preset sampling frequency for stable driving conditions having different sampling frequencies for different equipment of Yu et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce data redundancy, reduce the amount of data, reduce occupation of the storage resources and transmission resources, and facilitate subsequent analysis (Yu et al abstract).
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 20 Liu et al and Yu et al teach the claimed method, apparatus and computer program product (see above claims 1, 7 and 13). Liu et al do not teach adjusting the preset frequency based on the result comprises the claimed sending adjustment information that indicates to adjust the preset frequency based on the result, and the claimed adjustment information comprises the result.
Yu et al teach,
the claimed sending adjustment information that indicates to adjust the preset frequency based on the result, “The first acquisition unit 21 is configured to acquire the driving scene data of the driving scene where the vehicle is located; the second acquisition unit 22 is configured to acquire the driving behavior data on the vehicle; the determination unit 23 is configured to determine whether a preset stable driving condition is met based on the driving scene data of the driving scene where the vehicle is currently located acquired by the first acquisition unit 21, and the driving behavior data acquired by the second acquisition unit 22; if the preset stable driving condition is met, instruct the first acquisition unit 21 and the second acquisition unit 22 to acquire the driving scene data and the driving behavior data at a frequency lower than a preset sampling frequency.” (P[0075] and Figure 3), the determination unit 23 sends the instruction to lower the preset sampling frequency (claimed sending adjustment information), and wherein
the claimed adjustment information comprises the result, “When the above preset stable driving condition is met, it may be determined that the vehicle is driving stably at a low vehicle speed on a straight road, the vehicle speed does not fluctuate apparently, and the driving scene is simple, so that it is possible to acquire the driving scene data and driving behavior data at a frequency lower than the present sampling frequency” P[0084].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the operational design domain (ODD) determination method, apparatus and device of Liu et al with the lowering of the preset sampling frequency for stable driving conditions of Yu et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce data redundancy, reduce the amount of data, reduce occupation of the storage resources and transmission resources, and facilitate subsequent analysis (Yu et al abstract).
Regarding claim 15 Liu et al and Yu et al teach the claimed computer program product (see above claim 13), Liu et al teach the claimed preset condition is an operational design condition (ODC), “Design operating area (Operational design domain, ODD), also known as design operating range, or design operating condition, refers to the operating conditions under which a certain automatic driving system or automatic driving feature is designed to operate. Popular, that is, the operating conditions of a certain automatic driving function. Exemplarily, the operating conditions may include, but are not limited to, environment, geographic location, time limit, traffic and road characteristics, operating speed, etc.” (translation page 12 paragraph 4), the design operating condition equates to the claimed ODC.
Regarding claim 16 Liu et al and Yu et al teach the claimed computer program product (see above claim 13), Liu et al teach the claimed preset condition is an operational design domain (ODD), “whether the automatic driving system is within an operational design domain (ODD) can be determined” (translation abstract), and “Design operating area (Operational design domain, ODD), also known as design operating range, or design operating condition, refers to the operating conditions under which a certain automatic driving system or automatic driving feature is designed to operate. Popular, that is, the operating conditions of a certain automatic driving function. Exemplarily, the operating conditions may include, but are not limited to, environment, geographic location, time limit, traffic and road characteristics, operating speed, etc.” (translation page 12 paragraph 4).
Claim(s) 4, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al WIPO/PCT Publication Number WO 2021/103511 A1 (translation cited) and Yu et al European Patent Application Publication Number EP 3 792 882 A1 as applied to claims 1, 7 and 13 above, and further in view of Stahlin et al Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0043251 A1.
Regarding claims 4 and 10 Liu et al and Yu et al teach the claimed method and apparatus (see above claims 1 and 7), Liu et al and Yu et al do not teach the claimed result indicates a quantity of times a status of the preset element changes in a unit of time, or the claimed result indicates a priority of the preset element.
Stahlin et al teach the claimed result indicates a quantity of time a status of the preset element changes in a unit of time, “the data processing device is configured to transfer the generated at least one data object to the data application device based on a clock signal which is generatable by a clock generator and which is sendable to the data processing device in defined, particularly adjustable, time intervals. This achieves the advantage that, after a defined time, for example, after ten seconds, the data relating to the data objects in the transmitting control device, i.e., the data processing device, and the data relating to the data objects in the receiving control device, i.e., the data application device, are synchronized. Another possibility consists of intransferring anew all information relating to the existing data objects and the respective status information relating to the associated parameters after a defined quantity of changes in status information of the at least one parameter of the at least one data object” P[0016], and “transfer current status information of the at least one data object stored in the storage device of the data processing device to the data application device after a predetermined quantity of transfers of changes in the status information of the at least one parameter of the at least one data object or after a predetermined period of time” P[0029].
The number of data transfers and the time intervals of Stahlin et al would provide this additional information to the combined method and device of Liu et al and Yu et al for tracking the changes in status of the parameters. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the operational design domain (ODD) determination method, apparatus and device of Liu et al and the lowering of the preset sampling frequency for stable driving conditions of Yu et al with the tracking of the number of data transfers, status changes and the time intervals of Stahlin et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, enable transfer of high data rates between V2X control devices and other control devices in the vehicle and employ a cost-effective communications bus (Stahlin et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 17 Liu et al and Yu et al teach the claimed computer program product (see above claim 13), Liu et al and Yu et al do not teach the claimed result indicates a quantity of times a status of the preset element changes in a unit of time.
Stahlin et al teach the claimed result indicates a quantity of time a status of the preset element changes in a unit of time, “the data processing device is configured to transfer the generated at least one data object to the data application device based on a clock signal which is generatable by a clock generator and which is sendable to the data processing device in defined, particularly adjustable, time intervals. This achieves the advantage that, after a defined time, for example, after ten seconds, the data relating to the data objects in the transmitting control device, i.e., the data processing device, and the data relating to the data objects in the receiving control device, i.e., the data application device, are synchronized. Another possibility consists of intransferring anew all information relating to the existing data objects and the respective status information relating to the associated parameters after a defined quantity of changes in status information of the at least one parameter of the at least one data object” P[0016], and “transfer current status information of the at least one data object stored in the storage device of the data processing device to the data application device after a predetermined quantity of transfers of changes in the status information of the at least one parameter of the at least one data object or after a predetermined period of time” P[0029].
The number of data transfers and the time intervals of Stahlin et al would provide this additional information to the combined method and device of Liu et al and Yu et al for tracking the changes in status of the parameters. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the operational design domain (ODD) determination method, apparatus and device of Liu et al and the lowering of the preset sampling frequency for stable driving conditions of Yu et al with the tracking of the number of data transfers, status changes and the time intervals of Stahlin et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, enable transfer of high data rates between V2X control devices and other control devices in the vehicle and employ a cost-effective communications bus (Stahlin et al P[0004]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al WIPO/PCT Publication Number WO 2021/103511 A1 (translation cited) and Yu et al European Patent Application Publication Number EP 3 792 882 A1 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Foster et al Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0348227 A1.
Regarding claim 18 Liu et al and Yu et al teach the claimed computer program product (see above claim 13), Liu et al and Yu et al do not teach the claimed result indicates a priority of the preset element. Foster et al teach, “view status and provide input regarding what parameters to prioritize (e.g., speed, economy, maintaining originally planned route)” P[0076], “an autonomous vehicle may prioritize lane changes only for critical ELVs (i.e., ELVs that pose a safety threat) if conditions allow” P[0219], “An autonomous vehicle may act to avoid a collision with an ELV, or pedestrians surrounding the ELV, as its priority.” P[0224], and “autonomous vehicle may prioritize lane change away from the ELV to the merge lane in order to pass and merge safely” P[0246]. The prioritizing of data or activities is common and well known in the art, such as safety prioritized over speed. The prioritizing of the parameters of Foster et al would be applied to the conditions used by Liu et al in determining the autonomous driving. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the operational design domain (ODD) determination method, apparatus and device of Liu et al and the lowering of the preset sampling frequency for stable driving conditions of Yu et al with the tracking of the number of data transfers, status changes and the time intervals of Stahlin et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, ensure that the AV can operate safely in a way that is evident, logical, and familiar to surrounding drivers and pedestrians (Foster et al P[0003]).
Related Art
The examiner points to Matsumoto et al PGPub 2022/0135069 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Matsumoto et al is directed to a procedure of exclusion domain management processing (Figure 4), that includes: “the exclusion domain management portion 115 first determines whether the notice of the event occurrence is received from the driving condition monitor portion 114 (step S101). When the notice of the event occurrence is received at step S101 (YES at step S101), the flow proceeds to step S102.” P[0061], “At step S102, the exclusion domain management portion 115 calculates a road range (exclusion range) having a possibility to restrict driving of the vehicles 120 upon occurrence of an event based on the map 117 and position information about the event.” P[0062], “Step S103 is processed when an occurrence place of an event is identifiable using position information about the event on a road lane basis.” P[0065], “Steps S102 to S103 (step S104), and registers the exclusion domain ID to the data storage portion 111 as the exclusion domain information 119 in association with the exclusion domain (step S105). Further, at step S105, the exclusion domain management portion 115 transmits the registered the exclusion domain information 119 to the distribution portion 116.” P[0066], “at step S107 transitioned when the notice of the event occurrence is not received at step S101, the exclusion domain management portion 115 determines whether the notice of the event release is received from the driving condition monitor portion 114” P[0070], “At step S108, the exclusion domain management portion 115 calculates a road range (release range) having a possibility of releasing prohibition of driving of the vehicles 120 in response to the release of the event based on the map 117 and the position information about the event.” P[0072], “the exclusion domain management portion 115 retrieves the exclusion domain information 119 having an exclusion domain corresponding to the release domain determined through Steps S108 to S109 from the data storage portion 111, and identifies the exclusion domain ID of the corresponding exclusion domain information 119 (step S110)” P[0074], and “the exclusion domain management portion 115 deletes the exclusion domain information 119 of the exclusion domain ID identified at step S110 from the data storage portion 111 (step S111), and transmits the exclusion domain ID to the distribution portion 116” P[0075]. The autonomous vehicle is controlled in an Operational Design Domain with conditions that include date, time, weather, driving patterns, and driving permissions. P[0027].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights