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 .
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 11/21/2025, in which claims 1, 5, 7, 9-10, and 15 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the claim objections. Accordingly, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections:
Applicant argues on page 8 of the remarks that “the combination of Goldberg and Caprasecca do not teach or suggest each and every claim element or explain why the difference would be obvious.” Applicant argues on page 9 of the remarks that “in none of the disclosed scenarios does Goldberg describe a safety parameter that is external to the autonomous vehicle and that depends on the location of the autonomous vehicle within the map as recited in claim 1.” Applicant further argues on pages 9-10 of the remarks that “the Office Action uses impermissible hindsight” because “the Office Action fails to describe how external measures [taught by Caprasecca] can be used to replace the internal error modes described in Goldberg.”
In response to applicant’s arguments that the combination of Goldberg in view of Caprasecca does not teach all elements of claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the remarks that Goldberg does not disclose the “determining by the autonomous safety rider system whether the autonomous vehicle is operating outside the safety parameters” limitation, and therefore, Goldberg does not describe a safety parameter external to the autonomous vehicle and that depends on the location of the autonomous vehicle within the map. However, the Office action relies on Caprasecca to teach this limitation, not Goldberg (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below and Caprasecca Col. 4, lines 10-19; Col. 7, line 63-Col. 8, line 5).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Additionally, applicant’s arguments regarding using the teachings of Caprasecca “to replace the internal error modes described in Goldberg” are directed towards bodily incorporation of Caprasecca into Goldberg. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding applicant’s arguments directed towards impermissible hindsight and the combination of Goldberg in view of Caprasecca, there exists rational underpinning to combine Caprasecca with Goldberg that does not render Goldberg unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Goldberg with Caprasecca to improve safe operation of a vehicle and reduce the likelihood of a vehicle collision (see Caprasecca Col. 1, lines 59-67 and Patent Board Decision pages 6-7). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably combine Goldberg with Caprasecca because the type of data received by Goldberg to perform safe driving can be modified by the specific speed data received by Caprasecca (see Patent Board Decision pages 4-5). Therefore, the combination of Goldberg in view of Caprasecca teach all elements of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive. The rejections have been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0106117 A1, in view of Caprasecca et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,014,578 B1 (herein after Caprasecca).
Regarding claim 1, Goldberg teaches a method (Fig. 7A, Fig. 7B, Fig. 8) executing at an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving a map, at an autonomous safety rider system from a vehicle automation platform, the map providing one or more paths for the autonomous vehicle to follow and (see at least Goldberg [0078]: "As described in regard to FIG. 1, the autonomy system 604 can receive sensor data and/or other data (e.g. map data, positioning system data, vehicle motion data, vehicle state data, and/or the like) and determine commands to provide for autonomous operation of a vehicle. The autonomy system 604 can generate vehicle trajectory and pose data to provide for determining vehicle command data. The vehicle command data can be provided to a safety monitor system (e.g., as described in regard to FIG. 5) which can provide the vehicle command data to one or more vehicle controls."; [0038]: “For example, each of the subsystems, such as sensors, perception, prediction, motion planning, and/or the like can have their own error modes/failure states. The safety monitor system can monitor the other subsystems in addition to monitoring the vehicle controller… As another example, if the motion planning system fails, but the vehicle controller is still operating properly, the safety monitor system could provide for a predetermined trajectory to be executed to bring the vehicle to a safe stop.”);
receiving safety parameters, at the autonomous safety rider system from the vehicle automation platform, for the autonomous vehicle (see at least Goldberg [0062]: "By monitoring the output of the autonomy system 204, the safety monitor system 206 can detect one or more error conditions and/or failure modes of the autonomy system 204 and in particular, error conditions and/or failure modes of the vehicle controller.")
controlling the autonomous vehicle via an automated driving system to drive along the one or more paths (see at least Goldberg [0045]: "The vehicle computing system 106 can control the one or more vehicle controls 108 to operate the autonomous vehicle 102 according to the motion path."),
wherein the autonomous safety rider system is separate from the automated driving system (see at least Goldberg [0062]: "In some implementations, the safety monitor system 206 can reside between the autonomy system 204 and one or more vehicle controls, such as vehicle control 208.");
monitoring vehicle sensors via the autonomous safety rider system (see at least Goldberg [0031]: "In some implementations, example systems and methods of the present disclosure can provide for a safety monitor system that can monitor the output of the vehicle controller and/or another autonomy subsystem (e.g., sensors, prediction, perception, motion planning, and/or the like) and determine whether a failure or error condition has occurred."),
wherein the vehicle sensors are on the autonomous vehicle (see at least Goldberg [0045]: "The autonomous vehicle 102 can include one or more sensors 104");
in the event the autonomous vehicle is operating outside the safety parameters, sending via the autonomous safety rider system an operational signal to the autonomous vehicle to engage brakes, turn a steering, and/or engage a throttle (see at least Goldberg [0063]: "For example, in some implementations, the safety monitor system 206 can initiate one or more appropriate responses and/or maneuvers, such as generating one or more signals/commands to execute a safe stop of the vehicle, alert a driver to the failure, disengage the autonomous operation of the vehicle, and/or the like, for example."), The broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require the operational signal to be sent to the autonomous vehicle because it does not require that the autonomous vehicle is operating outside the safety parameters.
wherein the operational signal is transmitted to the autonomous vehicle via autonomous vehicle's CAN system (see at least Goldberg [0062]: "The vehicle computing system 202, and in particular, the safety monitor system 206, can communicate with the one or more vehicle controls 208 via one or more CAN interfaces. The safety monitor system 206 can monitor the outputs of the autonomy system 204, such as vehicle command data from a vehicle controller comprised within the autonomy system 204, and provide the outputs (e.g., vehicle command data, etc.) to the vehicle control(s) 208 via the CAN interface(s).");
sending a signal or message from the autonomous safety rider system to the automated driving system that the autonomous safety rider system has taken over control of the autonomous vehicle (see at least Goldberg [0063]: "If the amount of time is greater than a threshold amount of time, the safety monitor system 206 can determine that an error/failure has occurred and can generate one or more signals to provide for an appropriate response. For example, in some implementations, the safety monitor system 206 can initiate one or more appropriate responses and/or maneuvers, such as generating one or more signals/commands to execute a safe stop of the vehicle, alert a driver to the failure, disengage the autonomous operation of the vehicle, and/or the like, for example.");
and disabling control of the autonomous vehicle by the automated driving system (see at least Goldberg [0063]: "For example, in some implementations, the safety monitor system 206 can initiate one or more appropriate responses and/or maneuvers, such as generating one or more signals/commands to execute a safe stop of the vehicle, alert a driver to the failure, disengage the autonomous operation of the vehicle, and/or the like, for example.").
Goldberg fails to expressly disclose receiving safety parameters at one or more positions along a path and determining whether the autonomous vehicle is operating outside the safety parameters. However, Caprasecca teaches
receiving safety parameters…for the autonomous vehicle for one or more positions along a path within the map (see at least Caprasecca Col 2, lines 10-16: "This may allow the DSM platform to identify speed limit data that identifies respective speed limits at the set of geographic locations, and to determine, based on the respective speeds and the respective speed limits, a set of respective relative speed values associated with the vehicle."; instant application [0041] defines the safety parameters as including speed limit data),
wherein the safety parameters include a safety distance between the autonomous vehicle and other objects around the autonomous vehicle that vary depending on the location of the autonomous vehicle within the map (see at least Caprasecca Col. 7, line 63-Col. 8, line 5: “For example, DSM platform 104 may reference one or more data structures to obtain historical univocal speed indicators for a group of drivers, historical vehicle revolutions per minute (RPM) data that identifies a total RPM of an engine of a particular vehicle over the time interval, historical sensor data that identifies a set of trailing distances between the particular vehicle and another nearby vehicle, and/or the like. A trailing distance may refer to a distance between two vehicles (e.g., such as a distance that vehicle 102 is trailing behind another vehicle).”; Col. 11, lines 56-63: “In some implementations, DSM platform 104 may map data that identifies the set of rewards with specific univocal speed indicators, with specific ranges of univocal speed indicators, with specific univocal safety indicators, with specific ranges of univocal safety indicators, and/or the like. This may allow DSM platform 104 to reference the mapping to identify a particular reward associated with the univocal speed indicator and/or the univocal safety indicator.”; Caprasecca claim 5 teaches the trailing distances are associated with the univocal speed indicator);
determining by the autonomous safety rider system whether the autonomous vehicle is operating outside the safety parameters (see at least Caprasecca Col. 4, lines 10-19: "As shown in FIG. 1B, and by reference number 120, DSM platform 104 may determine a set of relative speed values associated with vehicle 102. For example, DSM platform 104 may determine a set of relative speed values that identify a set of relative speeds of vehicle 102 and that correspond to the set of geographic locations. A relative speed value may represent a relationship between a speed and a speed limit, a degree to which vehicle 102 is over or under a speed limit, and/or the like.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the safety system of Goldberg with the safety parameters of Caprasecca. Both Goldberg and Caprasecca disclose systems that are directed towards safe driving. While Goldberg’s safety system focuses on failures of a vehicle, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that parameters for speed of a vehicle are also important for safe operation of the vehicle. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the safety system of Goldberg with the speed parameters taught by Caprasecca to improve safe operation of a vehicle (see at least Caprasecca Col. 1, lines 59-67: “Furthermore, without a singular metric to reflect the multitude of different driving behaviors exhibited by drivers, such systems are unable to effectively manage driver safety, unable to effectively compare behaviors of different drivers to each other, and/or the like. For example, such a system may perform a set of actions to improve driver safety and/or to reduce a likelihood of vehicle collision, and may, without the singular metric, perform incorrect actions, perform correct actions inefficiently, and/or the like.”).
Regarding claim 5, Goldberg in combination with Caprasecca teaches all elements of the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Goldberg further teaches
wherein the autonomous vehicle comprises a semi-autonomous vehicle (see at least Goldberg [0044]: “The autonomous vehicle 102 can be configured to operate in one or more modes, for example, a fully autonomous operational mode and/or a semi-autonomous operational mode.”).
Regarding claim 7, Goldberg teaches a method (Fig. 7A, Fig. 7B, Fig. 8) executing on an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving a map, at an autonomous safety rider system from a vehicle automation platform, the map providing one or more paths for an autonomous vehicle to follow (see at least Goldberg [0078]: "As described in regard to FIG. 1, the autonomy system 604 can receive sensor data and/or other data (e.g. map data, positioning system data, vehicle motion data, vehicle state data, and/or the like) and determine commands to provide for autonomous operation of a vehicle. The autonomy system 604 can generate vehicle trajectory and pose data to provide for determining vehicle command data.");
receiving safety parameters at the autonomous safety rider system from the vehicle automation platform, for the autonomous vehicle (see at least Goldberg [0062]: "By monitoring the output of the autonomy system 204, the safety monitor system 206 can detect one or more error conditions and/or failure modes of the autonomy system 204 and in particular, error conditions and/or failure modes of the vehicle controller.");
controlling the autonomous vehicle via an automated driving system to drive along the one or more paths (see at least Goldberg [0045]: "The vehicle computing system 106 can control the one or more vehicle controls 108 to operate the autonomous vehicle 102 according to the motion path."),
wherein the autonomous safety rider system is separate from the automated driving system (see at least Goldberg [0062]: "In some implementations, the safety monitor system 206 can reside between the autonomy system 204 and one or more vehicle controls, such as vehicle control 208.");
monitoring vehicle sensors that are disposed on the autonomous vehicle via the autonomous safety rider system (see at least Goldberg [0031]: "In some implementations, example systems and methods of the present disclosure can provide for a safety monitor system that can monitor the output of the vehicle controller and/or another autonomy subsystem (e.g., sensors, prediction, perception, motion planning, and/or the like) and determine whether a failure or error condition has occurred."; [0045]: "The autonomous vehicle 102 can include one or more sensors 104");
and in the event the autonomous vehicle is operating outside the safety parameters, executing one or more of the following by the autonomous safety rider system via the autonomous vehicle’s CAN system: engaging one or more actuators to engage brakes on the autonomous vehicle, engaging one or more actuators to engage a steering, engaging one or more actuators to engage a throttle (see at least Goldberg [0063]: "For example, in some implementations, the safety monitor system 206 can initiate one or more appropriate responses and/or maneuvers, such as generating one or more signals/commands to execute a safe stop of the vehicle, alert a driver to the failure, disengage the autonomous operation of the vehicle, and/or the like, for example."; [0067]: "The safety monitor system 306 can monitor the outputs of the autonomy system 304, such as vehicle command data from a vehicle controller comprised within the autonomy system 304, and provide the outputs (e.g., vehicle command data, etc.) to the vehicle control(s) 308 via the CAN interface(s)."); The broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require the execution of any of the described systems because it does not require that the autonomous vehicle is operating outside the safety parameters);
sending a signal or message from the autonomous safety rider system to the automated driving system that the autonomous safety rider system has taken over control of the autonomous vehicle (see at least Goldberg [0063]: "If the amount of time is greater than a threshold amount of time, the safety monitor system 206 can determine that an error/failure has occurred and can generate one or more signals to provide for an appropriate response. For example, in some implementations, the safety monitor system 206 can initiate one or more appropriate responses and/or maneuvers, such as generating one or more signals/commands to execute a safe stop of the vehicle, alert a driver to the failure, disengage the autonomous operation of the vehicle, and/or the like, for example.");
and disabling control of the autonomous vehicle by the automated driving system (see at least Goldberg [0063]: "For example, in some implementations, the safety monitor system 206 can initiate one or more appropriate responses and/or maneuvers, such as generating one or more signals/commands to execute a safe stop of the vehicle, alert a driver to the failure, disengage the autonomous operation of the vehicle, and/or the like, for example.").
Goldberg fails to expressly disclose receiving safety parameters at one or more positions along a path and determining whether the autonomous vehicle is operating outside the safety parameters. However, Caprasecca teaches
receiving safety parameters…for the autonomous vehicle for one or more positions along a path within the map (see at least Caprasecca Col 2, lines 10-16: "This may allow the DSM platform to identify speed limit data that identifies respective speed limits at the set of geographic locations, and to determine, based on the respective speeds and the respective speed limits, a set of respective relative speed values associated with the vehicle."; instant application [0041] defines the safety parameters as including speed limit data),
wherein the safety parameters include a safety distance between the autonomous vehicle and other objects around the autonomous vehicle that vary depending on the location of the autonomous vehicle within the map (see at least Caprasecca Col. 7, line 63-Col. 8, line 5: “For example, DSM platform 104 may reference one or more data structures to obtain historical univocal speed indicators for a group of drivers, historical vehicle revolutions per minute (RPM) data that identifies a total RPM of an engine of a particular vehicle over the time interval, historical sensor data that identifies a set of trailing distances between the particular vehicle and another nearby vehicle, and/or the like. A trailing distance may refer to a distance between two vehicles (e.g., such as a distance that vehicle 102 is trailing behind another vehicle).”; Col. 11, lines 56-63: “In some implementations, DSM platform 104 may map data that identifies the set of rewards with specific univocal speed indicators, with specific ranges of univocal speed indicators, with specific univocal safety indicators, with specific ranges of univocal safety indicators, and/or the like. This may allow DSM platform 104 to reference the mapping to identify a particular reward associated with the univocal speed indicator and/or the univocal safety indicator.”; Caprasecca claim 5 teaches the trailing distances are associated with the univocal speed indicator);
and determining by the autonomous safety rider system whether the autonomous vehicle is operating outside the safety parameters (see at least Caprasecca Col. 4, lines 10-19: "As shown in FIG. 1B, and by reference number 120, DSM platform 104 may determine a set of relative speed values associated with vehicle 102. For example, DSM platform 104 may determine a set of relative speed values that identify a set of relative speeds of vehicle 102 and that correspond to the set of geographic locations. A relative speed value may represent a relationship between a speed and a speed limit, a degree to which vehicle 102 is over or under a speed limit, and/or the like.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the safety system of Goldberg with the safety parameters of Caprasecca. Both Goldberg and Caprasecca disclose systems that are directed towards safe driving. While Goldberg’s safety system focuses on failures of a vehicle, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that parameters for speed of a vehicle are also important for safe operation of the vehicle. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the safety system of Goldberg with the speed parameters taught by Caprasecca to improve safe operation of a vehicle (see at least Caprasecca Col. 1, lines 59-67: “Furthermore, without a singular metric to reflect the multitude of different driving behaviors exhibited by drivers, such systems are unable to effectively manage driver safety, unable to effectively compare behaviors of different drivers to each other, and/or the like. For example, such a system may perform a set of actions to improve driver safety and/or to reduce a likelihood of vehicle collision, and may, without the singular metric, perform incorrect actions, perform correct actions inefficiently, and/or the like.”).
Regarding claim 9, Goldberg in combination with Caprasecca teaches all elements of the method according to claim 7 as explained above. Goldberg further teaches
wherein the autonomous vehicle comprises a semi-autonomous vehicle (see at least Goldberg [0044]: “The autonomous vehicle 102 can be configured to operate in one or more modes, for example, a fully autonomous operational mode and/or a semi-autonomous operational mode.”).
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg in view of Caprasecca, and further in view of Letwin et al., U.S. Patent No. 9,580,080 B1 (herein after Letwin).
Regarding claim 10, Goldberg teaches an autonomous vehicle system (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig.3) comprising:
a braking system comprising one or more brakes; a steering system; a throttle system (see at least Goldberg [0059]: "The one or more commands from the vehicle controller 116 can provide for operating one or more vehicle controls 108 (e.g., actuators or other devices that control acceleration, throttle, steering, braking, etc.) to execute the selected motion plan.");
one or more sensors, the one or more sensors comprising a…lidar, radar, a camera (see at least Goldberg [0049]: "In particular, in some implementations, the perception system 110 can receive sensor data from the one or more sensors 104 that are coupled to or otherwise included within the autonomous vehicle 102. As examples, the one or more sensors 104 can include a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system, a Radio Detection and Ranging (RADAR) system, one or more cameras (e.g., visible spectrum cameras, infrared cameras, etc.), and/or other sensors.")
an automated driving system in communication with the braking system, the steering system, the throttle system, a communication interface, and the one or more sensors, the automated driving system controlling an autonomous vehicle via a vehicle automation platform to drive along one or more paths (see at least Goldberg [0045]: "The autonomous vehicle 102 can include one or more sensors 104, a vehicle computing system 106, and one or more vehicle controls 108. The vehicle computing system 106 can assist in controlling the autonomous vehicle 102."; [0045]: "The vehicle computing system 106 can control the one or more vehicle controls 108 to operate the autonomous vehicle 102 according to the motion path.");
and the autonomous safety rider system in communication with the one or more sensors, the autonomous safety rider system: monitors one or more sensors (see at least Goldberg [0031]: "In some implementations, example systems and methods of the present disclosure can provide for a safety monitor system that can monitor the output of the vehicle controller and/or another autonomy subsystem (e.g., sensors, prediction, perception, motion planning, and/or the like) and determine whether a failure or error condition has occurred.");
Goldberg fails to expressly disclose determining whether the autonomous vehicle is operating outside the safety parameters. However, Caprasecca teaches
the one or more sensors comprising a GPS sensor, a speedometer…an orientation sensor, an accelerometer, and a direction sensor (see at least Caprasecca Col. 13, lines 17-22: “The location sensor may include a device capable of detecting a location of user device 210-1, such as a global positioning system (GPS) sensor, a gyroscope, a proximity sensor, and/or the like. The speed sensor may include a device capable of detecting a speed of user device 210-1, such as a speedometer, an accelerometer, and/or the like.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation an orientation sensor and a direction sensor includes a gyroscope)
determines whether the autonomous vehicle is operating outside of one or more safety parameters (see at least Caprasecca Col. 4, lines 10-19: "As shown in FIG. 1B, and by reference number 120, DSM platform 104 may determine a set of relative speed values associated with vehicle 102. For example, DSM platform 104 may determine a set of relative speed values that identify a set of relative speeds of vehicle 102 and that correspond to the set of geographic locations. A relative speed value may represent a relationship between a speed and a speed limit, a degree to which vehicle 102 is over or under a speed limit, and/or the like."; instant application [0041] defines the safety parameters as including speed limit data),
wherein the one or more safety parameters include a safety distance between the autonomous vehicle and other objects around the autonomous vehicle that vary depending on the location of the autonomous vehicle within the map (see at least Caprasecca Col. 7, line 63-Col. 8, line 5: “For example, DSM platform 104 may reference one or more data structures to obtain historical univocal speed indicators for a group of drivers, historical vehicle revolutions per minute (RPM) data that identifies a total RPM of an engine of a particular vehicle over the time interval, historical sensor data that identifies a set of trailing distances between the particular vehicle and another nearby vehicle, and/or the like. A trailing distance may refer to a distance between two vehicles (e.g., such as a distance that vehicle 102 is trailing behind another vehicle).”; Col. 11, lines 56-63: “In some implementations, DSM platform 104 may map data that identifies the set of rewards with specific univocal speed indicators, with specific ranges of univocal speed indicators, with specific univocal safety indicators, with specific ranges of univocal safety indicators, and/or the like. This may allow DSM platform 104 to reference the mapping to identify a particular reward associated with the univocal speed indicator and/or the univocal safety indicator.”; Caprasecca claim 5 teaches the trailing distances are associated with the univocal speed indicator);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the safety system of Goldberg with the safety parameters of Caprasecca. Both Goldberg and Caprasecca disclose systems that are directed towards safe driving. While Goldberg’s safety system focuses on failures of a vehicle, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that parameters for speed of a vehicle are also important for safe operation of the vehicle. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the safety system of Goldberg with the speed parameters taught by Caprasecca to improve safe operation of a vehicle (see at least Caprasecca Col. 1, lines 59-67: “Furthermore, without a singular metric to reflect the multitude of different driving behaviors exhibited by drivers, such systems are unable to effectively manage driver safety, unable to effectively compare behaviors of different drivers to each other, and/or the like. For example, such a system may perform a set of actions to improve driver safety and/or to reduce a likelihood of vehicle collision, and may, without the singular metric, perform incorrect actions, perform correct actions inefficiently, and/or the like.”).
Goldberg in view of Caprasecca fail to expressly disclose a drive by wire system. However, Letwin teaches
a drive by wire interface in communication with the autonomous safety rider system, the braking system, the steering system, and/or the throttle system (see at least Letwin Col. 10, lines 42-48: “For example, the DBW control module 412 may be in a “ready” condition if it is functioning properly (e.g., software for executing the DBW control module 412 is up and running) and is able to communicate with each of the interface modules 420-460 (e.g., interface modules 420-460 are able to receive instructions/control signals from the DBW control module 412).”; Col. 6, lines 39-44: "In example implementations, the autonomy controller 84 may translate the vehicle commands 85 into control signals (CS) 119 for respective control interfaces 92-99 of the vehicle interface subsystem 90. In some aspects, each of the control interfaces 92-99 may provide drive-by-wire (DBW) functionality for a respective vehicle operation."; Letwin Col. 6, lines 51-62 and Fig. 4: Letwin teaches control interfaces 92-99 and interface modules 420-460 include at least a braking system, steering system, and throttle system)
and sends a signal via the drive by wire interface to perform one of the following functions to engage the braking system, engage the steering system, and engage the throttle system (see at least Letwin Col. 10, lines 42-48: “For example, the DBW control module 412 may be in a “ready” condition if it is functioning properly (e.g., software for executing the DBW control module 412 is up and running) and is able to communicate with each of the interface modules 420-460 (e.g., interface modules 420-460 are able to receive instructions/control signals from the DBW control module 412).”; Col. 6, lines 39-44: "In example implementations, the autonomy controller 84 may translate the vehicle commands 85 into control signals (CS) 119 for respective control interfaces 92-99 of the vehicle interface subsystem 90. In some aspects, each of the control interfaces 92-99 may provide drive-by-wire (DBW) functionality for a respective vehicle operation."; Letwin Col. 6, lines 51-62 and Fig. 4: Letwin teaches control interfaces 92-99 and interface modules 420-460 include at least a braking system, steering system, and throttle system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the systems taught by Goldberg and Caprasecca with the drive by wire control system taught by Letwin. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Goldberg, Caprasecca, and Letwin are all directed towards the same field of autonomous vehicle control. It is also well understood in the art that an autonomous vehicle can be modified by a drive by wire system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the teachings of Goldberg and Caprasecca with the drive by wire system taught by Letwin to improve the control of the vehicle (see at least Letwin Col. 1, lines 31-34: “Therefore, it may be desirable to provide an autonomous vehicle with safeguards for ensuring a relatively safe transition between autonomous and manual modes.”).
Regarding claim 15, Goldberg in combination with Caprasecca and Letwin teaches all elements of the system according to claim 10 as explained above. Goldberg teaches the system further comprising
one or more actuators engaged with the braking system, the steering system, and/or the throttle system, wherein the autonomous safety rider system sends the signal to the one or more actuators (see at least Goldberg [0062]: "The vehicle computing system 202, and in particular, the safety monitor system 206, can communicate with the one or more vehicle controls 208 via one or more CAN interfaces."; [0064]: "Upon determining that a failure and/or error has occurred, the safety monitor system 206 can generate one or more commands and/or signals to initiate an appropriate response.").
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662