DETAILED ACTION
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 made FINAL. Claims 1-4, and 6-20 are currently pending and addressed below; claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 14, and 17 have been amended; and claim 5 has been cancelled.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendments, Examiner withdraws the previous claim interpretation of the contingent language; withdraws the previous § 112(b) rejection of claim 4; withdraws the previous § 101 rejections; and maintains the previous § 102 and § 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/8/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 5 under Oboril has been fully considered and are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that Oboril does not teach the claimed policy error rate because a rate is something that is measured per unit of time, and that the specification describes the rate as a distribution of occurrence. Remarks at p. 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Oboril teaches the policy error rate at least at ¶¶ [0124] – [0127], which describes estimating a collision probability based on the number of events that occur per unit of time, i.e., error rate, which includes the number times the vehicle exceeds a predefined threshold for two driving parameters, including vehicle speed and distance.
Applicant further argues that Oboril does not teach the rate as being a rate of deviation over a predefined interval. Remarks at p. 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Oboril teaches this limitation at least at ¶ [0102], which describes a deviation in the vehicle’s velocity from an expected threshold amount to a velocity less than a threshold amount based on the sensor data.
As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0107470 to Oboril et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Oboril et al. discloses:
A device comprising a processor (¶ [0124] one or more processors) configured to:
estimate a hazard probability for a vehicle based on operational information about the vehicle, wherein the hazard probability represents a likelihood that the vehicle will experience a driving event over a predefined interval (¶¶ [0124] – [0127] describing estimating a collision probability based on vehicle operation information over a predetermined period of time; operational information is vehicle speed, travel direction, and/or distance to object); and
send a control instruction to adjust a driving parameter of the vehicle based on the hazard probability when the hazard probability deviates from a predefined hazard safety criterion (¶ [0134] describing performing an evasive maneuver if the hazard probability deviates from a safety criterion);
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the hazard probability based on a policy error rate of a parametric policy of the vehicle, wherein the policy error rate represents a rate at which a driving parameter of the vehicle exceeds a predefined threshold for the driving parameter from the parametric policy (¶¶ [0124] – [0127] describing estimating a collision probability based on the number of events that occur per unit of time, i.e., error rate, which includes the number times the vehicle exceeds a predefined threshold for two driving parameters, including vehicle speed and distance).
Regarding claim 2, Oboril et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Oboril et al. further discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the hazard probability based on a situational probability of the vehicle, wherein the situational probability represents a situational likelihood that the vehicle encounters a driving situation or an environmental condition requiring a change in an operational parameter (¶ [¶ [0124] – [0127] describing basing the hazard probability on an environmental condition requiring a change in operation parameter).
Regarding claim 6, Oboril et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Oboril et al. further discloses:
wherein the driving parameter comprises an acceleration of the vehicle (¶ [0127] describing acceleration of the vehicle) and the parametric policy comprises at least one of a maximum allowable acceleration of the vehicle, a minimum allowable distance to a proximate object (¶ [0126] describing the minimum allowable distance to the object used in the probability calculation), a maximum allowable change in acceleration, a maximum allowable braking force, an allowable technique of a lane change, and wherein the policy error rate represents the rate as a distribution over the predefined interval of an occurrence, a magnitude, and a duration of when the driving parameter of the vehicle exceeds the predefined threshold (¶¶ [0124] – [0127] describing distribution over a duration of time, collision occurrence, and the severity, i.e., magnitude).
Regarding claim 7, Oboril et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Oboril et al. further discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the policy error rate based on a deviation over the predefined interval of the driving parameter from an expected driving parameter for the vehicle according to the parametric policy (¶ [0102] describing a deviation in the vehicle’s velocity from an expected threshold amount to a velocity less than a threshold amount based on the sensor data).
Regarding claim 8, Oboril et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Oboril et al. further discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the hazard probability based on a policy error rate of a parametric policy of the vehicle, wherein the policy error rate represents an occurrence rate at which a predicted action of an object proximate the vehicle at a given time fails to match a actual action of the object at the given time (¶ [0102] describing the predicted action of an object failing to match an actual action of the object by falling below a predicted velocity threshold).
Regarding claim 9, Oboril et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Oboril et al. further discloses:
the device further comprising a memory configured to store at least one of the operational information, the hazard probability, the driving parameter, the predefined interval, and the predefined hazard safety criterion (¶¶ [0070], [0071], [0088] describing the memory used to store the all the data to perform the probability determination, including the operational information, driving parameters, predefined intervals, and safety criterion).
Regarding claim 10, Oboril et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Oboril et al. further discloses:
wherein the driving event comprises a collision of the vehicle with another object (¶¶ [0124] – [0127] describing collision with another vehicle).
Regarding claim 11, Oboril et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Oboril et al. further discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to, at a predefined interval: receive updated operational information about the vehicle; estimate the hazard probability as an updated hazard probability based on the updated operational information; and readjust the driving parameter based on the updated hazard probability (¶¶ [0133] – [0137] describing receiving the updated operational information in the form of an evasive maneuver and determining the risk probability of the evasive maneuver, and readjusting the driving parameter based on whether the updated probability is above or below certain thresholds).
Regarding claim 12, Oboril et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Oboril et al. further discloses:
wherein the predefined hazard safety criterion comprises a target level of compliance with an automated driving safety standard (¶ [0063] describing that the driving model described in the disclosure is targeting a safety driving model that complies with all applicable laws, standards, policies, etc. for automated driving; see also ¶ [0124] describing that the collision risk model is aligned with the functional safety standard ISO 26262).
Regarding claim 13, Oboril et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Oboril et al. further discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to adjust the driving parameter of the vehicle based on the hazard probability if the hazard probability deviates from the predefined hazard safety criterion by a threshold deviation (¶¶ [0133] – [0137] describing the risk safety thresholds that determine whether to adjust the driving parameter based on the hazard probability).
Regarding claim 14, Oboril et al. discloses:
An apparatus comprising:
an estimation circuit configured to estimate a hazard probability for a vehicle based on operational information about the vehicle and a situational probability of the vehicle, wherein the hazard probability represents a likelihood that the vehicle will experience a driving event over a predefined interval, wherein the situational probability represents a situational likelihood that the vehicle encounters a driving situation or an environmental condition requiring a change in an operational parameter (¶¶ [0124] – [0127] describing estimating a collision probability based on vehicle operation information over a predetermined period of time; operational information is vehicle speed, travel direction, and/or distance to object; also describing basing the hazard probability on an environmental condition requiring a change in operation parameter); and
a control circuit configured to send a control instruction to adjust a driving parameter of the vehicle based on the hazard probability when the hazard probability deviates from a predefined hazard safety criterion (¶ [0134] describing performing an evasive maneuver if the hazard probability deviates from a safety criterion);
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the hazard probability based on a policy error rate of a parametric policy of the vehicle, wherein the policy error rate represents a rate at which a driving parameter of the vehicle exceeds a predefined threshold for the driving parameter from the parametric policy (¶¶ [0124] – [0127] describing estimating a collision probability based on the number of events that occur per unit of time, i.e., error rate, which includes the number times the vehicle exceeds a predefined threshold for two driving parameters, including vehicle speed and distance).
Regarding claim 15, Oboril et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 14. Oboril et al. further discloses:
the apparatus further comprising a determination circuit to determine the situational likelihood based on a deviation over the predefined interval of:
the operational parameter from an expected operational parameter of the vehicle (¶¶ [0075] – [0077] describing the collision likelihood is based in part on the change from an expected operation parameter of the vehicle being continuously determined as the vehicle travels); or
the environmental condition from an expected environmental condition at the vehicle (¶¶ [0124] – [0127] describing basing the hazard probability on an environmental condition requiring a change in operation parameter).
Regarding claim 16, Oboril et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 15. Oboril et al. further discloses:
wherein the expected operational parameter or the expected environmental condition is based on an historical dataset comprising corresponding operational parameters or corresponding environmental conditions of other vehicles (¶¶ [0061], [0062] describing expected operational parameters from a historical dataset).
Regarding claim 17, Oboril et al. discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium that comprises instructions (¶ [0043] memory and instructions) which, when executed, cause one or more processors (¶ [0124] one or more processors) to:
estimate a hazard probability for a vehicle based on operational information about the vehicle, wherein the hazard probability represents a likelihood that the vehicle will experience a driving event over a predefined interval (¶¶ [0124] – [0127] describing estimating a collision probability based on vehicle operation information over a predetermined period of time; operational information is vehicle speed, travel direction, and/or distance to object);
send a control instruction to adjust a driving parameter of the vehicle based on the hazard probability when the hazard probability deviates from a predefined hazard safety criterion (¶ [0134] describing performing an evasive maneuver if the hazard probability deviates from a safety criterion);
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the hazard probability based on a policy error rate of a parametric policy of the vehicle, wherein the policy error rate represents a rate at which a driving parameter of the vehicle exceeds a predefined threshold for the driving parameter from the parametric policy (¶¶ [0124] – [0127] describing estimating a collision probability based on the number of events that occur per unit of time, i.e., error rate, which includes the number times the vehicle exceeds a predefined threshold for two driving parameters, including vehicle speed and distance).
Regarding claim 18, Oboril et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Oboril et al. further discloses:
wherein the wherein the instructions further cause the one or processors to determine the hazard probability based on at least one of:
a perception quality rating of a perception system of the vehicle, wherein the perception quality rating represents an error rate of a measurement of the perception system;
a situational probability of the vehicle, wherein the situational probability represents a situational likelihood that the vehicle encounters a driving situation or an environmental condition requiring a change in an operational parameter (¶ [¶ [0124] – [0127] describing basing the hazard probability on an environmental condition requiring a change in operation parameter); and
a policy error rate of a parametric policy of the vehicle, wherein the policy error rate represents an occurrence rate at which a driving parameter of the vehicle exceeds a predefined threshold for the driving parameter from the parametric policy.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 4, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oboril et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20220126875 to Hammoud (previously of record).
Regarding claim 3, Oboril et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Oboril et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to determine the hazard probability based on a perception quality rating of a perception system of the vehicle, wherein the perception quality rating represents an error rate of a measurement of the perception system.
Hammoud, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine the hazard probability based on a perception quality rating of a perception system of the vehicle, wherein the perception quality rating represents an error rate of a measurement of the perception system (¶ [0046] describing using a quality rating for a sensor in detecting a hazard where the measurement of the sensor is above or below a threshold (error rate)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oboril et al.’s invention to incorporate basing the hazard probability on an error rate of the perception system, as taught by Hammoud, with a reasonable expectation of success in using data collected from the sensor that are above a certain confidence threshold and rejecting the data received from sensor below a confidence threshold (Hammoud at ¶ [0046]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Oboril et al. and Hammoud renders obvious all the limitations of claim 3. Oboril et al. further discloses:
wherein the measurement of the perception system comprises an object detection by the perception system of an object proximate the vehicle (¶¶ [0124] – [0127] describing collision with another vehicle proximate to the vehicle and detected by the sensors).
Oboril et al. does not expressly discloses wherein perception quality rating represents the error rate as a distribution over the predefined interval of an occurrence, a magnitude, or a duration of the object detection.
Hammoud further discloses wherein perception quality rating represents the error rate as a distribution over the predefined interval of an occurrence, a magnitude, or a duration of the object detection (¶ [0047] describing the quality rating of the sensor as s distribution over an occurrence of the object detection; see also ¶ [0042] describing the perception information being captured over a duration of time).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Oboril et al.’s invention to incorporate determining the perception quality over an occurrence or duration of time, as taught by Hammoud, with a reasonable expectation of success in using data collected from the sensor that are above a certain confidence threshold and rejecting the data received from sensor below a confidence threshold (Hammoud at ¶ [0046]).
Regarding claim 19, Oboril et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 18.
Oboril et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the perception quality rating of the perception system comprises a deviation of first perception information obtained from a first perception sensor system as compared to second perception information obtained from a second perception sensor system.
Hammoud, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the perception quality rating of the perception system comprises a deviation of first perception information obtained from a first perception sensor system as compared to second perception information obtained from a second perception sensor system (¶ [0051] describing a deviation from the initial confidence level associated with the first perception information as compared to an adjusted confidence level associated with second perception information obtain by the vehicle as it travels).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Oboril et al.’s invention to incorporate adjusting the perception quality rating with a second sensor information, as taught by Hammoud, with a reasonable expectation of success in using data collected from the sensor that are above a certain confidence threshold and rejecting the data received from sensor below a confidence threshold (Hammoud at ¶ [0046]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Oboril et al. and Hammoud renders obvious all the limitations of claim 19. Hammoud further discloses:
wherein the first perception information comprises a first number of detection objects detected by the first perception sensor system in a field of view, wherein the second perception information comprises a second number of detection objects detected by the second perception sensor system in the field of view (¶ [0051] describing the initial perception information comprising a number of detected objects around the vehicle and a second number of objects detected around the vehicle used to adjust the initial confidence level of the perception information, specifically relating to using perception information obtained from other perception systems contained in a database in the event that the first perception information does not contain the objects due to a blind corner or other obstruction).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Oboril et al.’s invention to incorporate adjusting the perception quality rating with a second sensor information, as taught by Hammoud, with a reasonable expectation of success in using data collected from the sensor that are above a certain confidence threshold and rejecting the data received from sensor below a confidence threshold (Hammoud at ¶ [0046]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-4pm ET.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/JDH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645