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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Request for Continuation dated February 24, 2026. Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-21 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0343644, to Slawinski et al. (hereinafter Slawinski), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0222983, to Vejalla et al. (hereinafter Vejalla), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0088168, to Oyama, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0234652, to Miranda et al. (hereinafter Miranda).
As per claim 1, and similarly with respect to claims 9 and 17, Slawinski discloses a method for protocol-level verification of aberrant driving decisions, comprising: receiving an aberrant driving decision for an autonomous vehicle…; determining whether a command enabling aberrant driving decisions has been received…; …and responsive to the command being received, allowing execution of the aberrant driving decision (e.g. see Fig. 1 and para 0140, wherein a vehicle is provided that despites reception of a fault condition from a sensor, continues in a traversal mode).
Slawinski fails to disclose wherein the command enabling aberrant driving decisions enables aberrant driving decisions for a predefined amount of time. However, Vehalla a vehicle having an autonomous driving mode that detects fault conditions (e.g. see para 0026), wherein during a fault condition the vehicle is permitted to continue to operate for a specific amount of time depending on the type of fault condition (e.g. see para 0055). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Slawinski to include allowing continued operation of the vehicle, for a predetermined time, to allow the operator to seek repair during lesser fault conditions not effecting safety of the passenger(s).
Slawinski fails to disclose sending the aberrant driving decisions based on a determination that one or more attributes of the aberrant driving decisions are within a calculated range. However, Oyam teaches allowing target steering control, of a lane-keeping control, to be performed if it is in an acceptable error range, i.e., an acceptable safety margin, which is based upon an own vehicle position information and map information (i.e. dynamically calculated range) (e.g. see para 0086). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Slawinski to include allowing continued operation of the vehicle, given a particular position within a map setting, if the erroneous command is within a margin of safety range.
Slawinski fails to disclose wherein the aberrant driving decision comprises an executable driving decision having one or more attributes that fall outside of one or more predefined or dynamically calculated bounds for a normal driving decision. However, Miranda teaches an autonomous vehicle configured to self-diagnose a fault in an actuator and to limit erroneous or aberrant commands to the actuator to stay within a predetermined range (e.g. see para 0070). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Slawinski to include limit aberrant control commands to a prescribed range for the purpose of limiting potential damage to the vehicle and surrounding environment .
As per claim 2, and similarly with respect to claims 10 and 18, Slawinski, as modified by Vejalla, Miranda and Oyam, teaches the features of claims 1, 9 and 17, respectively, and Slawinski further discloses further comprising: detecting, by a monitoring system, that the aberrant driving decision is to be sent, wherein sending the aberrant driving decision is by the monitoring system based on a verification of the aberrant driving decision, the command enabling aberrant driving decisions (e.g. see Fig. 1 and para 0140, wherein a vehicle is provided that despites reception of a fault condition from a sensor, continues in a traversal mode).
As per claim 3, and similarly with respect to claims 11 and 19, Slawinski, as modified by Vejalla, Miranda and Oyam, teaches the features of claims 2, 10 and 18, respectively, and Slawinski further discloses wherein detecting that the aberrant driving decision is to be sent is based on one or more functions applied to the aberrant driving decision (e.g. see Fig. 1 and para 0140, wherein a vehicle is provided that despites reception of a fault condition from a sensor, continues in a traversal mode).
Claims 4-6, 8, 12-14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slawinski, in view of Vejalla, in view of Oyam, in view of Miranda and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0072345, to Menaker et al. (hereinafter Menaker).
As per claim 4, and similarly with respect to claims 12 and 20, Slawinski, as modified by Vejalla, Miranda and Oyam, teaches the features of claims 3, 11 and 19, respectively, but fails to teach wherein the one or more functions comprise a threshold number of standard deviations. However, Menaker teaches determining a predicted error from a frame range using standard deviation threshold (e.g. see at least claim 19). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Slawinski to include a using standard deviation threshold, from a range of data, as a well known and routine means for determining errors.
As per claim 5, and similarly with respect to claim 13, Slawinski, as modified by Vejalla, Miranda and Oyam, teaches the features of claims 3 and 11, respectively, but fails to teach wherein the one or more functions comprise one or more attribute ranges. However, Menaker determining a predicted error from a frame range using standard deviation threshold (e.g. see at least claim 19). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Slawinski to include a using standard deviation threshold, from a range of data, as a well known and routine means for determining errors.
As per claim 6, and similarly with respect to claim 14, Slawinski, as modified by Vejalla, Miranda and Oyam, teaches the features of claims 2 and 10, respectively, but fails to teach further comprising performing, by the monitoring system, the verification of the aberrant driving decision However, Menaker determining a predicted error from a frame range using standard deviation threshold (e.g. see at least claim 19). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Slawinski to include a using standard deviation threshold, from a range of data, as a well known and routine means for determining errors.
As per claim 8, and similarly with respect to claim 16, Slawinski, as modified by Vejalla, Miranda and Oyam, teaches the features of claims 6 and 14, respectively, but fails to teach wherein performing the verification of the aberrant diving decision is based on one or more portions of sensor data used to generate the aberrant driving decision. However, Menaker determining a predicted error from a frame range of doppler data (i.e. sensor data) using standard deviation threshold (e.g. see at least claim 19). Menaker further teaches that the data is of sample time intervals (e.g. see Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Slawinski to include a using standard deviation threshold, from a range of data, as a well known and routine means for determining errors.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slawinski, in view of Vejalla, in view of Oyam, in view of Miranda and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0205824, to Nordruch.
As per claim 21, Slawinski, as modified by Vejalla, Miranda and Oyam, teaches the features of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the aberrant driving decision comprises a driving decision having one or more attributes that fall outside of one or bounds for a normal driving decision. However, Nordbruch teaches determining that control commands of an autonomous vehicle are determined as erroneous (i.e. fall outside a normal driving decision) (e.g. see paras 0042 and 0050). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Slawinski to include a detecting and preventing erroneous control commands from being carried out for the purpose of maintaining safety of the occupants of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B