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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejection, Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that prior art references Hauler and Rocha do not explicitly disclose continuously maps a safe-stop trajectory…and wherein directing the autonomous vehicle to follow the safe-stop trajectory causes the autonomous vehicle to deviate from a planned path of the vehicle trajectory and to slow the autonomous vehicle from a current velocity of the vehicle trajectory. Applicant’s also argue that there is no indication that the environmental sensor 15 of Hauler receives the safety trajectory 5 mapped by the trajectory planning module 8 or any other vehicle data. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Also, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Prior art reference King discloses continuously maps a safe-stop trajectory for the autonomous vehicle based on the vehicle trajectory data and environmental data received from the one or more sensors by describing that the trajectory 116 may be continuously updated over time and that the primary system 106 may send the trajectory 116 to the secondary system 108, wherein the secondary system may cause the vehicle to follow a modified trajectory (see at least [0012] secondary system may then determine if the trajectory of the vehicle is likely to intersect the current or predicted position of the object. If so, this may indicate that the primary system missed detecting a potential collision with the object. Here, the secondary system may cause the vehicle to decelerate, stop, or perform another maneuver (e.g., change lanes, swerve, etc.) to avoid a collision with the object, [0018]: trajectory 116 may be continuously updated, [0072]: trajectory modification component 220 may then send a signal to the trajectory selection component 222 to decelerate along the trajectory (e.g., a modified trajectory). In some examples, such trajectory modification may also comprise adjusting steering angles and/or other controls to further adjust the trajectory).
Further, prior art reference King discloses wherein directing the autonomous vehicle to follow the safe-stop trajectory causes the autonomous vehicle to deviate from a planned path of the vehicle trajectory and to slow the autonomous vehicle from a current velocity of the vehicle trajectory by describing pulling over to the side of the road, causing the vehicle to decelerate, and adjusting steering angles or other controls to further adjust the trajectory (see at least [0012] the secondary system may cause the vehicle to decelerate, stop, or perform another maneuver (e.g., change lanes, swerve, etc.) to avoid a collision with the object. For example, the secondary system may instruct the vehicle to come to a hard stop (e.g., a hard stop maneuver that includes braking as quickly as possible). In examples, the secondary system may cause the vehicle to decelerate or stop when it is detected that the collision is imminent (e.g., will occur within a relatively small amount of time) and/or when the collision is detected with a relatively high degree of confidence (e.g., above a threshold), [0030]: other types of maneuvers may be used, such as a maneuver that causes the autonomous vehicle 102 to decelerate at any rate, pull over to the side of the road, swerve or make another direction change, etc. In examples, the secondary system 108 may generate a new trajectory that causes the autonomous vehicle 102 to perform a maneuver, [0072]: trajectory modification may also comprise adjusting steering angles and/or other controls to further adjust the trajectory. In at least some examples, such modifications may be to either a main trajectory and/or a contingent trajectory received from the primary system 106, [0073]: determine the deceleration rate based on a current velocity of the autonomous vehicle, [0093]: second system 304 may cause the vehicle to perform a maneuver, such as decelerate, stop, change lanes, pull over, swerve, or otherwise change the trajectory. For example, the second system 304 may send a signal to a system controller(s) to cause the vehicle to decelerate along the trajectory (e.g., a modified trajectory)).
As similarly recited in the previous office action 08/27/2025 and advisory action 11/24/2025, King does not explicitly disclose an urgent stop environmental sensor that is separate from the one or more sensors coupled with the autonomous vehicle controller.
However, Rocha teaches an urgent stop environmental sensor (see at least [0054]: set of sensors 216); an urgent stop controller coupled with the urgent stop environmental sensor that is separate from the one or more sensors coupled with the autonomous vehicle controller (see at least [0054]). As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by King by incorporating the teachings of Rocha with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve reliability and safety of vehicles with redundant hardware and software. The combination would yield predictable results.
Moreover, Hauler teaches maps a safe-stop trajectory for the autonomous vehicle based on the vehicle trajectory data and environmental data received from urgent stop environmental sensor separate from the one or more sensors coupled with the autonomous vehicle controller by describing that trajectory planning module 8 forward the safety trajectory 5 to a second control device 12, a further environment sensor 15 is coupled to the second control device 12 in Figure 2, and the further environment sensor 15 detects an object that is located ahead in the area of the safety trajectory 5, which triggers an emergency braking operation (see at least [0018]: Trajectory planning module 8 forwards this safety trajectory 5 to second control device 12, [0021]: additional environment sensor system 15 is required only for the emergency operating mode, i.e., while traveling along safety trajectory 15, it is recommended to use a cost-effective yet robust sensor type for this purpose).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by King by incorporating maps a safe-stop trajectory for the autonomous vehicle based on the vehicle trajectory data and environmental data received from urgent stop environmental sensor as taught by Hauler with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide improved robustness and trigger an automatically initiated and implemented emergency braking operation to avoid the imminent collision during a time period in which the vehicle is guided along a trajectory. The combination would yield predictable results.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0148201, hereinafter King, in view of US 2021/0394770, hereinafter Rocha and US 2016/0368491, hereinafter Hauler.
As per claim 1, King discloses an autonomous vehicle, comprising:
a speed control system (see at least [0018] trajectory 116 comprises a control(s) for a steering angle and/or acceleration of the autonomous vehicle 102);
a steering system (see at least [0018] trajectory 116 comprises a control(s) for a steering angle and/or acceleration of the autonomous vehicle 102);
a first environmental sensor (see at least [0010] primary system processes data from multiple types of sensors on the vehicle, such as Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) sensors, RADAR sensors, image sensors, depth sensors (time of flight, structured light, etc, [0017]);
a geolocation sensor that produces geolocation data (see at least [0017] sensor(s) 104 may include a variety of sensors, such as light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensors, RADAR sensors, ultrasonic transducers, sonar sensors, location sensors (e.g., global navigation satellite system (GNSS) (including global positioning systems (GPS)), compass, etc.), inertial sensors (e.g., inertial measurement units (IMUs), accelerometers, magnetometers, gyroscopes, etc.), [0049] localization component 214 may receive the sensor data 118 from the sensor(s) 104 (or the data processing component 212) to determine one or more of a position and/or orientation (together a pose) of the autonomous vehicle 102); and
an autonomous vehicle controller communicatively coupled with the speed control system, the steering system, the first environmental sensor, and the geolocation sensor (see at least [0018] primary system 106 may control the vehicle during normal operation, claim 1: vehicle system comprising: one or more sensors; a first system comprising one or more first processors and one or more first memories comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more first processors, cause the first processors to: receive first sensor data from a first subset of the one or more sensors; and determine, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a trajectory for controlling an autonomous vehicle),
the autonomous vehicle controller directs the vehicle along a vehicle trajectory by sending signals to the speed control system and the steering control system based on vehicle trajectory data (see at least [0018] trajectory 116 comprises a control(s) for a steering angle and/or acceleration of the autonomous vehicle 102, [0048] a drive system(s), claim 1: determine, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a trajectory for controlling an autonomous vehicle),
an urgent stop controller coupled with one or more sensors (see at least [0012] secondary system may analyze sensor data to identify a current position of an object around the vehicle and predict a future position of the object. The secondary system may then determine if the trajectory of the vehicle is likely to intersect the current or predicted position of the object, claim 1: a second system comprising one or more second processors and one or more second memories comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more second processors, cause the one or more second processors to: receive the trajectory from the first system; receive second sensor data from a second subset of the one or more sensors), the urgent stop controller:
receives the vehicle trajectory data from the autonomous vehicle controller (see at least claim 1: a second system comprising one or more second processors…cause the one or more second processors to: receive the trajectory from the first system);
receives environmental data from the one or more sensors (see at least claim 1: a second system…cause the one or more second processors to: receive the trajectory from the first system; receive second sensor data from a second subset of the one or more sensors; based at least in part on the trajectory and the second sensor data, determine a probability that the autonomous vehicle will collide with an object);
continuously maps a safe-stop trajectory for the autonomous vehicle based on the vehicle trajectory data and environmental data received from the one or more sensors, wherein the safe-stop trajectory ends in the autonomous vehicle being stopped (see at least [0012] secondary system may then determine if the trajectory of the vehicle is likely to intersect the current or predicted position of the object. If so, this may indicate that the primary system missed detecting a potential collision with the object. Here, the secondary system may cause the vehicle to decelerate, stop, or perform another maneuver (e.g., change lanes, swerve, etc.) to avoid a collision with the object. For example, the secondary system may instruct the vehicle to come to a hard stop (e.g., a hard stop maneuver that includes braking as quickly as possible). In examples, the secondary system may cause the vehicle to decelerate or stop when it is detected that the collision is imminent (e.g., will occur within a relatively small amount of time) and/or when the collision is detected with a relatively high degree of confidence (e.g., above a threshold), [0018]: trajectory 116 may be continuously updated, [0025] change trajectory signal 126 may instruct the system controller(s) 110 to decelerate along the trajectory 116 (e.g., slow down along the same course). That is, the secondary system 108 may use steering controls associated with the trajectory 116 while modifying acceleration parameters associated with the trajectory 116 to cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to a stop, [0044]); and
in response to an emergency trigger event, directs the autonomous vehicle to follow the safe-stop trajectory by sending signals to the speed control system and the steering system (see at least [0012] the secondary system may cause the vehicle to decelerate, stop, or perform another maneuver (e.g., change lanes, swerve, etc.) to avoid a collision with the object. For example, the secondary system may instruct the vehicle to come to a hard stop (e.g., a hard stop maneuver that includes braking as quickly as possible). In examples, the secondary system may cause the vehicle to decelerate or stop when it is detected that the collision is imminent (e.g., will occur within a relatively small amount of time) and/or when the collision is detected with a relatively high degree of confidence (e.g., above a threshold), [0025], [0044]),
wherein directing the autonomous vehicle to follow the safe-stop trajectory causes the autonomous vehicle to deviate from a planned path of the vehicle trajectory and to slow the autonomous vehicle from a current velocity of the vehicle trajectory (see at least [0012] the secondary system may cause the vehicle to decelerate, stop, or perform another maneuver (e.g., change lanes, swerve, etc.) to avoid a collision with the object. For example, the secondary system may instruct the vehicle to come to a hard stop (e.g., a hard stop maneuver that includes braking as quickly as possible). In examples, the secondary system may cause the vehicle to decelerate or stop when it is detected that the collision is imminent (e.g., will occur within a relatively small amount of time) and/or when the collision is detected with a relatively high degree of confidence (e.g., above a threshold), [0030]: other types of maneuvers may be used, such as a maneuver that causes the autonomous vehicle 102 to decelerate at any rate, pull over to the side of the road, swerve or make another direction change, etc. In examples, the secondary system 108 may generate a new trajectory that causes the autonomous vehicle 102 to perform a maneuver, [0073]: determine the deceleration rate based on a current velocity of the autonomous vehicle, [0093]: second system 304 may cause the vehicle to perform a maneuver, such as decelerate, stop, change lanes, pull over, swerve, or otherwise change the trajectory. For example, the second system 304 may send a signal to a system controller(s) to cause the vehicle to decelerate along the trajectory (e.g., a modified trajectory)).
King does not explicitly disclose an urgent stop environmental sensor, an urgent stop controller coupled with the urgent stop environmental sensor that is separate from the one or more sensors coupled with the autonomous vehicle controller (see at least [0012] secondary system may analyze sensor data to identify a current position of an object around the vehicle and predict a future position of the object. The secondary system may then determine if the trajectory of the vehicle is likely to intersect the current or predicted position of the object).
However, Rocha teaches an urgent stop environmental sensor (see at least [0054]: set of sensors 216);
an urgent stop controller coupled with the urgent stop environmental sensor that is separate from the one or more sensors coupled with the autonomous vehicle controller (see at least [0054]: VCU computer 208 is communicably coupled to a set of sensors 216 so that the stop safe module 214 can obtain the sensor data from a set of sensors 216. The sensor data from the set of sensors 216 measures one or more regions towards which the vehicle is being driven. The set of sensors 216 may be different from the sets of sensors (e.g., 202a, 202b) that send sensor data to the plurality of CU computers 204a, 204b).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by King by incorporating an urgent stop controller coupled with the urgent stop environmental sensors as disclosed by Rocha with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve reliability and safety of vehicles with redundant hardware and software. The combination would yield predictable results.
King discloses the trajectory may control a path that the autonomous vehicle will take over a window of time and the trajectory may be continuously updated over time ([0018]) but King does not explicitly disclose maps a safe-stop trajectory for the autonomous vehicle based on the vehicle trajectory data and environmental data received from urgent stop environmental sensor.
However, Hauler teaches maps a safe-stop trajectory for the autonomous vehicle based on the vehicle trajectory data and environmental data received from urgent stop environmental sensor (see at least [0018]: Trajectory planning module 8 forwards this safety trajectory 5 to second control device 12, [0021]: further environment sensor 15 may optionally be provided…scanning the vehicle environment lying immediately ahead with regard to objects that are present and for ensuring that no collision with another object takes place during the emergency operation, i.e., during the time period in which vehicle 3 is guided to stopping position 6 along safety trajectory 5 in a controlled and safe manner…If optional additional environment sensor 15 detects an object that is located ahead in the area of safety trajectory 5, then this further additional environment sensor 15 is able to trigger an automatically initiated and implemented emergency braking operation in order to avoid the imminent collision or at least to mitigate the collision consequences in the event of an unavoidable collision, Fig. 2; Examiner note: as similarly stated in the advisory action 11/24/2025, Hauler describes a second control device 12 receiving safety trajectory from the trajectory planning module 8 and receiving environmental data from the further environment sensor 15, and mapping an emergency braking based on the received safety trajectory data and the further environment sensor data 15).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by King by incorporating maps a safe-stop trajectory for the autonomous vehicle based on the vehicle trajectory data and environmental data received from urgent stop environmental sensor as taught by Hauler with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide improved robustness and trigger an automatically initiated and implemented emergency braking operation to avoid the imminent collision during a time period in which the vehicle is guided along a trajectory. The combination would yield predictable results.
Claim 10 recites similar limitations and is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
As per claim(s) 2, 11, King discloses wherein the one or more sensors senses one or more obstacles, and wherein the safe-stop trajectory avoids the one or more obstacles (see at least [0012] the secondary system may cause the vehicle to decelerate, stop, or perform another maneuver (e.g., change lanes, swerve, etc.) to avoid a collision with the object. For example, the secondary system may instruct the vehicle to come to a hard stop (e.g., a hard stop maneuver that includes braking as quickly as possible). In examples, the secondary system may cause the vehicle to decelerate or stop when it is detected that the collision is imminent (e.g., will occur within a relatively small amount of time) and/or when the collision is detected with a relatively high degree of confidence (e.g., above a threshold)).
As described above, King does not explicitly disclose an urgent stop environmental sensor that is separate from the one or more sensors coupled with the autonomous vehicle controller (see at least [0012] secondary system may analyze sensor data to identify a current position of an object around the vehicle and predict a future position of the object. The secondary system may then determine if the trajectory of the vehicle is likely to intersect the current or predicted position of the object).
However, Rocha teaches an urgent stop environmental sensor (see at least [0054]: set of sensors 216); an urgent stop controller coupled with the urgent stop environmental sensor that is separate from the one or more sensors coupled with the autonomous vehicle controller (see at least [0054]: VCU computer 208 is communicably coupled to a set of sensors 216 so that the stop safe module 214 can obtain the sensor data from a set of sensors 216. The sensor data from the set of sensors 216 measures one or more regions towards which the vehicle is being driven. The set of sensors 216 may be different from the sets of sensors (e.g., 202a, 202b) that send sensor data to the plurality of CU computers 204a, 204b).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by King by incorporating an urgent stop controller coupled with the urgent stop environmental sensors as disclosed by Rocha with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve reliability and safety of vehicles with redundant hardware and software. The combination would yield predictable results.
Moreover, Hauler teaches wherein the urgent stop environmental sensor senses one or more obstacles, and wherein the safe-stop trajectory avoids the one or more obstacles (see at least [0021]: further environment sensor 15 may optionally be provided…scanning the vehicle environment lying immediately ahead with regard to objects that are present and for ensuring that no collision with another object takes place during the emergency operation, i.e., during the time period in which vehicle 3 is guided to stopping position 6 along safety trajectory 5 in a controlled and safe manner…If optional additional environment sensor 15 detects an object that is located ahead in the area of safety trajectory 5, then this further additional environment sensor 15 is able to trigger an automatically initiated and implemented emergency braking operation in order to avoid the imminent collision or at least to mitigate the collision consequences in the event of an unavoidable collision, Fig. 2).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by King by incorporating the teachings of Hauler with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide improved robustness and trigger an automatically initiated and implemented emergency braking operation to avoid the imminent collision during a time period in which the vehicle is guided along a trajectory. The combination would yield predictable results.
As per claim(s) 3, 12, King discloses wherein the vehicle trajectory data includes one or more of the following: velocity, geolocation, poise, heading, and position (see at least abstract, [0026] secondary system 108 may also determine that an amount of time needed to stop the autonomous vehicle 102 (e.g., with a hard stop maneuver) and avoid a collision with the object is three seconds (e.g., based on a velocity of the vehicle and/or the object)).
As per claim(s) 4, 13, King discloses wherein the one or more sensors includes one or more of the following: radar, lidar, visual sensor, and sonar (see at least [0017] sensor(s) 104 may include a variety of sensors, such as light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensors, RADAR sensors, ultrasonic transducers, sonar sensors, location sensors (e.g., global navigation satellite system (GNSS) (including global positioning systems (GPS)), compass, etc.), inertial sensors (e.g., inertial measurement units (IMUs), accelerometers, magnetometers, gyroscopes, etc.)).
King does not explicitly disclose an urgent stop environmental sensor, an urgent stop controller coupled with the urgent stop environmental sensor that is separate from the one or more sensors also coupled with the autonomous vehicle controller (see at least [0012] secondary system may analyze sensor data to identify a current position of an object around the vehicle and predict a future position of the object. The secondary system may then determine if the trajectory of the vehicle is likely to intersect the current or predicted position of the object).
However, Rocha teaches wherein the urgent stop environmental sensor includes one or more of the following: radar, lidar, visual sensor, and sonar (see at least [0054]: set of sensors 216, [0064]: set of sensors include at least two cameras, at least two LiDAR sensors, at least two RADAR sensors, at least two infrared cameras, at least two ultrasonic sensors).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by King by incorporating an urgent stop controller coupled with the urgent stop environmental sensors as disclosed by Rocha with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve reliability and safety of vehicles with redundant hardware and software and to enable the stop safe module to bring the vehicle to a complete stop. The combination would yield predictable results.
As per claim(s) 5, 14, King discloses wherein the emergency trigger event a trigger from the following: human input, a biological indicator, detection of unsafe conditions, and an emergency event (see at least [0012] the secondary system may cause the vehicle to decelerate, stop, or perform another maneuver (e.g., change lanes, swerve, etc.) to avoid a collision with the object. For example, the secondary system may instruct the vehicle to come to a hard stop (e.g., a hard stop maneuver that includes braking as quickly as possible). In examples, the secondary system may cause the vehicle to decelerate or stop when it is detected that the collision is imminent (e.g., will occur within a relatively small amount of time) and/or when the collision is detected with a relatively high degree of confidence (e.g., above a threshold), [0024], [0038]).
As per claim(s) 6, 15, King discloses wherein if the one or more sensors does not sense an environmental obstacle, the safe-stop trajectory follows the vehicle trajectory (see at least [0028] If the secondary system 108 does not detect the predicted collision 120 and/or the primary system error 128, the secondary system 108 may send the trajectory 116 to the system controller(s) 110. In other words, the secondary system 108 may cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to proceed along the trajectory 116 that is generated by the primary system 106). Claim 15 recites similar limitation(s) and is rejected under the same rationale.
As described above, King does not explicitly disclose an urgent stop environmental sensor that is separate from the one or more sensors coupled with the autonomous vehicle controller (see at least [0012] secondary system may analyze sensor data to identify a current position of an object around the vehicle and predict a future position of the object. The secondary system may then determine if the trajectory of the vehicle is likely to intersect the current or predicted position of the object).
However, Rocha teaches wherein the urgent stop environmental sensor includes one or more of the following: radar, lidar, visual sensor, and sonar (see at least [0054]: set of sensors 216, [0064]: set of sensors include at least two cameras, at least two LiDAR sensors, at least two RADAR sensors, at least two infrared cameras, at least two ultrasonic sensors).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by King by incorporating an urgent stop controller coupled with the urgent stop environmental sensors as disclosed by Rocha with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve reliability and safety of vehicles with redundant hardware and software and to enable the stop safe module to bring the vehicle to a complete stop. The combination would yield predictable results.
Moreover, Hauler teaches wherein if the urgent stop environmental sensor does not sense an environmental obstacle, the safe-stop trajectory follows the vehicle trajectory (see at least [0021]: further environment sensor 15 may optionally be provided…scanning the vehicle environment lying immediately ahead with regard to objects that are present and for ensuring that no collision with another object takes place during the emergency operation, i.e., during the time period in which vehicle 3 is guided to stopping position 6 along safety trajectory 5 in a controlled and safe manner, Fig. 2).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by King by incorporating the teachings of Hauler with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide improved robustness and trigger an automatically initiated and implemented emergency braking operation to avoid the imminent collision during a time period in which the vehicle is guided along a trajectory. The combination would yield predictable results.
As per claim(s) 7, 16, King discloses wherein if the one or more sensors senses an environmental obstacle along the vehicle trajectory, the safe-stop trajectory does not follow the vehicle trajectory (see at least [0012] the secondary system may cause the vehicle to decelerate, stop, or perform another maneuver (e.g., change lanes, swerve, etc.) to avoid a collision with the object. For example, the secondary system may instruct the vehicle to come to a hard stop (e.g., a hard stop maneuver that includes braking as quickly as possible). In examples, the secondary system may cause the vehicle to decelerate or stop when it is detected that the collision is imminent (e.g., will occur within a relatively small amount of time) and/or when the collision is detected with a relatively high degree of confidence (e.g., above a threshold), [0025] change trajectory signal 126 may instruct the system controller(s) 110 to decelerate along the trajectory 116 (e.g., slow down along the same course). That is, the secondary system 108 may use steering controls associated with the trajectory 116 while modifying acceleration parameters associated with the trajectory 116 to cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to a stop, [0044] a trajectory would cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to maintain a current speed and steering angle whereas a contingent trajectory would cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to pull over onto a roadway shoulder).
As described above, King does not explicitly disclose an urgent stop environmental sensor that is separate from the one or more sensors coupled with the autonomous vehicle controller (see at least [0012] secondary system may analyze sensor data to identify a current position of an object around the vehicle and predict a future position of the object. The secondary system may then determine if the trajectory of the vehicle is likely to intersect the current or predicted position of the object).
However, Rocha teaches wherein the urgent stop environmental sensor includes one or more of the following: radar, lidar, visual sensor, and sonar (see at least [0054]: set of sensors 216, [0064]: set of sensors include at least two cameras, at least two LiDAR sensors, at least two RADAR sensors, at least two infrared cameras, at least two ultrasonic sensors).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by King by incorporating an urgent stop controller coupled with the urgent stop environmental sensors as disclosed by Rocha with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve reliability and safety of vehicles with redundant hardware and software and to enable the stop safe module to bring the vehicle to a complete stop. The combination would yield predictable results.
Moreover, Hauler teaches wherein if the urgent stop environmental sensor senses an environmental obstacle along the vehicle trajectory, the safe-stop trajectory does not follow the vehicle trajectory (see at least [0021]: further environment sensor 15 may optionally be provided…scanning the vehicle environment lying immediately ahead with regard to objects that are present and for ensuring that no collision with another object takes place during the emergency operation, i.e., during the time period in which vehicle 3 is guided to stopping position 6 along safety trajectory 5 in a controlled and safe manner, Fig. 2).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the invention as disclosed by King by incorporating the teachings of Hauler with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide improved robustness and trigger an automatically initiated and implemented emergency braking operation to avoid the imminent collision during a time period in which the vehicle is guided along a trajectory. The combination would yield predictable results.
As per claim(s) 8, 17, King discloses wherein the vehicle trajectory data comprises vehicle speed, and wherein the safe-stop trajectory comprises a deceleration from the vehicle speed to a stop (see at least abstract, [0028] If the secondary system 108 does not detect the predicted collision 120 and/or the primary system error 128, the secondary system 108 may send the trajectory 116 to the system controller(s) 110. In other words, the secondary system 108 may cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to proceed along the trajectory 116 that is generated by the primary system 106, [0025] change trajectory signal 126 may instruct the system controller(s) 110 to decelerate along the trajectory 116 (e.g., slow down along the same course). That is, the secondary system 108 may use steering controls associated with the trajectory 116 while modifying acceleration parameters associated with the trajectory 116 to cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to a stop, [0044] a trajectory would cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to maintain a current speed and steering angle whereas a contingent trajectory would cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to pull over onto a roadway shoulder).
As per claim(s) 9, 19, 20, King discloses wherein directing the autonomous vehicle to follow the safe-stop trajectory comprises sending an instruction to the autonomous vehicle controller (see at least abstract, [0028] If the secondary system 108 does not detect the predicted collision 120 and/or the primary system error 128, the secondary system 108 may send the trajectory 116 to the system controller(s) 110. In other words, the secondary system 108 may cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to proceed along the trajectory 116 that is generated by the primary system 106, [0044] a trajectory would cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to maintain a current speed and steering angle whereas a contingent trajectory would cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to pull over onto a roadway shoulder, [0048] drive system(s)).
As per claim(s) 18, King discloses wherein the directing the autonomous vehicle along the vehicle trajectory includes receiving environmental data from a second environmental sensor on the autonomous vehicle (see at least abstract, [0018] sensor data 114 may include a wide variety of data, such as location data, inertial data, LIDAR data, RADAR data, image data, audio data, environmental data, depth data, etc. For example, the primary system 106 may analyze the sensor data 114 to localize the autonomous vehicle 102, detect an object around the autonomous vehicle 102, segment the sensor data 114, determine a classification of the object, predict an object track, generate a trajectory 116 for the autonomous vehicle 102, and so on).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220177007, hereinafter Nemoto, teaches a vehicle control system that executes vehicle traveling control for generating a target trajectory of the vehicle based on a recognition result by the recognition sensor and executing control such that the vehicle follows the target trajectory. Nemoto teaches an autonomous driving controller with first recognition sensor and autonomous driving trajectory and teaches a traveling assistance controller with second recognition sensor and target assistance trajectory.
US 20190106117, hereinafter Goldberg, teaches a system and method for a vehicle controller safety monitor. Goldberg teaches monitoring a status of a vehicle controller during operation of an autonomous vehicle 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 teaches that the safety monitor system can provide different response to error modes or failure states depending on a subsystem affected. Goldberg teaches that the safety monitor system can be implemented using separate hardware (e.g., separate processer(s), etc.) from the vehicle controller (and/or other subsystems) to provide an additional level of robustness.
US 10,332,396, hereinafter Christensen, teaches while the autonomous vehicle is being directed along the vehicle trajectory, maps a safe-stop trajectory for the autonomous vehicle based on the vehicle trajectory data and environmental data received from urgent stop environmental sensor (see at least Fig. 2: (208) and (210), column 10 lines 43-49: computing system 210 itself may detect (222) the emergency event. In an embodiment, the computing system 210 may collect and analyze data to determine that an emergency event has occurred. For example, the computing system 210 may collect sensor data from an infrastructure component that indicates a stalled vehicle in the roadway, column 10 lines 50-63: In response to detecting the emergency event (or receiving the indication of the emergency event from the third-party source 212), the computing system 210 may retrieve (224) operation data from the vehicle 208…the operation data may include location data in the form of GPS coordinates that may indicate a roadway on which the vehicle 208 is traveling or has traveled…a current route, column 12 lines 43-50: operation modification may represent the autonomous vehicle 208 being routed to the specified destination (or a location nearby the specified destination) along the alternative route that avoids the planned route of the emergency vehicle 209. In another example, the computing device 210 may determine a target roadway location along the planned route of the emergency vehicle 209 for the autonomous vehicle 208 to pull over).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELINA M SHUDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6757. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10am - 6pm.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
Angelina Shudy
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Angelina M Shudy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668