DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This office action is in response to application number 17/932,177 filed on 09/14/2022, in
which the amendments and arguments filed on 10/27/2025.
Claims 1 and 20 has been amended.
No claims have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/14/2022 and 03/09/2023 has
been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
4. Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied
to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are
representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the
individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that,
in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially
teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by
the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that
the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should
also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP
§2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable
Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to
Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01. The
U.S. Patent application 16/959,177 should be moved from the Non-Patent Literature Documents
section to the U.S. Patents section. For purpose of examination the fail operation mode and the
fail degraded protection mode are being used as the same mode within the Tsai reference. The
mode in the Tsai reference can be interpreted as fail degraded mode or fail operational mode
depending on how it is used.
Response to Amendment
5. With regards to claim 1 rejection under USC 103 the Applicants respectfully disagree with the Examiner's interpretation of Tsai’s teachings, and in turn, respectfully disagree with the Examiner's reading of the automation controller limitations on Tsai. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims the reading of “the first plurality of computers configured to … provide fail degraded protection for a portion of processing and fail operational protection for a remainder of the processing” is disclosed in Tsai paragraphs 0004, 0037, and 0216. Specifically, the fail operational protection found in applicant’s specification paragraphs 0006 & 0041, in which a failure of one of the computers still permits full operational functionality in the robotically-controlled mobile machine is disclosed in Tsai in Paragraph 0216 as Tsai discloses a safe mode which may switch to a redundant processor and maintain the output of the actuators at the last level prior to the hardware fault. Fail degraded protection found in applicant’s specification paragraphs 0019 & 0041, in which a failure of one of the computers permits continued operation but with one or more constraints as compared to the fail operational portions (e.g., operation at reduced speed, operation with one or more maneuvering capabilities disabled, etc.) is also disclosed in Tsai in Paragraph 0216 as Tsai discloses a protected mode which disables certain actuators and braking the vehicle.
For these reason applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner also respectfully disagrees with the Applicant and under the most reasonable interpretation examiner believes […] “second plurality of computers implement a dual lockstep, doubly redundant mechanism to provide fail operational protection” is discloses in Tsai paragraphs 0042, 0090, and 0216. Specifically, The second plurality of computers may implement a dual lockstep, doubly redundant mechanism to provide fail operational protection is disclosed in Paragraph 0090 as Tsai discloses in a safety mode, two or more cores that may operate in a lockstep mode. The above stated reasoning are within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “fail operational protection” and “doubly redundant lockstep mode” as claimed. For these reasons applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant also respectfully disagrees that claims 11 and 19 are unpatentable and rejected for the reasons similar to claim 1. For the reasons explained above Examiner disagrees and has determined the arguments are unpersuasive for the same reasons as described above therefore the rejection has 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.
6. Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-11, 14, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20220048525 A1) to Tsai et al. (hereinafter Tsai).
Regarding claim 1, Tsai discloses An automation controller comprising: (Tsai Paragraph 0042: “Controller(s) 436, which may include one or more CPU(s), system on chips (SoCs) 404 (FIG. 4C) and/or GPU(s), may provide signals (e.g., representative of commands) to one or more components and/or systems of the vehicle 400.”) a first plurality of computers configured to process sensor data from a plurality of sensors on a robotically-controlled mobile machine to generate an output trajectory to be followed by the robotically-controlled mobile machine, (Tsai Paragraph 0037: “The feedback control system of FIG. 3 may be any system capable of actuation in response to an input to any of its sensors. As one example, the system of FIG. 3 may be a robotic actuator capable of actuation according to input force or various environmental variables. As another example, the system of FIG. 3 may be an autonomous vehicle capable of self-directed driving in response to a path calculated from its environment and a desired destination,”) wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to provide fail degraded protection for a portion of the processing and fail operational protection for remainder of the processing, wherein the fail degraded protection allows the robotically-controlled mobile machine to operate after a failure of one of the first plurality of computers with one or more constraints, wherein the fail operational protection allows the robotically-controlled mobile machine to continue to operate after a failure without application of the one or more constraints; (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like.”) and a second plurality of computers coupled to the first plurality of computers and configured to control a plurality of actuators in the robotically-controlled mobile machine to cause the robotically-controlled mobile machine to follow the output trajectory, (Tsai Paragraph 0037: “The feedback control system of FIG. 3 may be any system capable of actuation in response to an input to any of its sensors. As one example, the system of FIG. 3 may be a robotic actuator capable of actuation according to input force or various environmental variables. As another example, the system of FIG. 3 may be an autonomous vehicle capable of self-directed driving in response to a path calculated from its environment and a desired destination,”) wherein the second plurality of computers implement a dual lockstep, doubly redundant mechanism to provide fail operational protection. (Tsai Paragraph 0090: “In a safety mode, the two or more cores may operate in a lockstep mode and function as a single core with comparison logic to detect any differences between their operations.”)
Regarding claim 4, Tsai discloses The automation controller as recited in claim 1 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to process data describing a plurality of objects surrounding the robotically-controlled mobile machine to generate a plurality of potential actions by the robotically-controlled mobile machine and the plurality of objects, wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to provide fail operational protection to generate the plurality of potential actions. (Tsai Paragraph 0025: “Each instance 120, 130 receives as input sensor data from one or more sensors 100 via sensor distributor 110, and generates as output one or more actuation commands directing actuation of the system in response to its detected environment.”) (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like. Any one or more actions are contemplated.”)
Regarding claim 7, Tsai discloses The automation controller as recited in claim 1 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to detect a failure of a first one of the first plurality of computers and to continue operation of the robotically-controlled mobile machine in fail degraded mode based on the failure. (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “If a hardware fault is detected, the checker 140 may signal the presence of a fault (Step 850) and/or take any other desired action. As one example, checker 140 may discard actuation commands corresponding to the detected fault, for as long as the fault is determined to exist. As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like. Any one or more actions are contemplated.”)
Regarding claim 8, Tsai discloses The automation controller as recited in claim 1 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to detect a failure of at least two of the first plurality of computers and to bring the robotically-controlled mobile machine to a stop based on the failure. (Tsai Paragraph 0004: “When such control systems employ one or more programs or instruction sets for carrying out feedback control, multiple instances of the same programs are executed to run simultaneously.”) (Tsai Paragraph 0214: “If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like. Any one or more actions are contemplated.”)
Regarding claim 9, Tsai discloses The automation controller as recited in claim 1 wherein the one or more constraints include operating the robotically-controlled mobile machine at a reduced speed compared to fail operational mode. (Tsai Paragraph 0214: “As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like. Any one or more actions are contemplated.”) (Note: Prior to the hardware fault the vehicle was maintaining a certain speed due the vehicle has had the brakes applied thus reducing the speed of the vehicle)
Regarding claim 10, Tsai discloses The automation controller as recited in claim 1 wherein the one or more constraints include operating the robotically-controlled mobile machine while preventing one or more actions that the robotically-controlled mobile machine is permitted to perform when the first plurality of computers are operating. (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like. Any one or more actions are contemplated.”)
Regarding claim 11, Tsai discloses A machine comprising: (Tsai Paragraph 0004: “feedback control systems suitable for use with or deployment in autonomous machines and autonomous machine applications”) a plurality of sensors; (Tsai Paragraph 0025: “Here, a number of sensors 100”) and an automation controller coupled to the plurality of sensors, wherein the automation controller comprises: (Tsai Paragraph 0042: “Controller(s) 436, which may include one or more CPU(s), system on chips (SoCs) 404 (FIG. 4C) and/or GPU(s), may provide signals (e.g., representative of commands) to one or more components and/or systems of the vehicle 400.”) a first plurality of computers configured to process sensor data from the plurality of sensors to generate an output trajectory to be followed by the machine, (Tsai Paragraph 0037: “The feedback control system of FIG. 3 may be any system capable of actuation in response to an input to any of its sensors. As one example, the system of FIG. 3 may be a robotic actuator capable of actuation according to input force or various environmental variables. As another example, the system of FIG. 3 may be an autonomous vehicle capable of self-directed driving in response to a path calculated from its environment and a desired destination,”) wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to provide fail degraded protection for a portion of the processing and fail operational protection for a remainder of the processing, wherein the fail degraded protection allows the machine to operate after a failure of one of the first plurality of computers with one or more constraints, wherein the one or more constraints are not applied to machine operation after a failure of one of the first plurality of computers with fail operational protection; (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like.”) and a second plurality of computers coupled to the first plurality of computers and configured to control a plurality of actuators in the machine to cause the machine to follow the output trajectory, (Tsai Paragraph 0037: “The feedback control system of FIG. 3 may be any system capable of actuation in response to an input to any of its sensors. As one example, the system of FIG. 3 may be a robotic actuator capable of actuation according to input force or various environmental variables. As another example, the system of FIG. 3 may be an autonomous vehicle capable of self-directed driving in response to a path calculated from its environment and a desired destination,” wherein the second plurality of computers implement a dual lockstep, doubly redundant mechanism to provide fail operational protection. (Tsai Paragraph 0090: “In a safety mode, the two or more cores may operate in a lockstep mode and function as a single core with comparison logic to detect any differences between their operations.”)
Regarding claim 14, Tsai discloses The machine as recited in claim 13 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to process data describing a plurality of objects surrounding the robotically-controlled mobile machine to generate a plurality of potential actions by the robotically-controlled mobile machine and the plurality of objects, wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to provide fail operational protection to generate the plurality of potential actions. (Tsai Paragraph 0025: “Each instance 120, 130 receives as input sensor data from one or more sensors 100 via sensor distributor 110, and generates as output one or more actuation commands directing actuation of the system in response to its detected environment.”) (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like. Any one or more actions are contemplated.”)
Regarding claim 17, Tsai discloses The machine as recited in claim 11 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to detect a failure of a first one of the first plurality of computers and to continue operation of the robotically-controlled mobile machine in fail degraded mode based on the failure. (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “If a hardware fault is detected, the checker 140 may signal the presence of a fault (Step 850) and/or take any other desired action. As one example, checker 140 may discard actuation commands corresponding to the detected fault, for as long as the fault is determined to exist. As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like. Any one or more actions are contemplated.”)
Regarding claim 18, Tsai discloses The machine as recited in claim 17 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to detect a failure of at least two of the first plurality of computers and to bring the robotically-controlled mobile machine to a stop based on the failure. (Tsai Paragraph 0004: “When such control systems employ one or more programs or instruction sets for carrying out feedback control, multiple instances of the same programs are executed to run simultaneously.”) (Tsai Paragraph 0214: “If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like. Any one or more actions are contemplated.”)
7. Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 20220048525 A1) in view of (US 10394243 B1) to Ramezani et al. (hereinafter Ramezani).
Regarding claim 2, Tsai discloses claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Tsai does disclose and wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to provide fail degraded protection for processing of the sensor data from the subsets. (Tsai Paragraph 0026: “The feedback control system may be any system that uses one or more control programs to control one or more actuators in response to input from one or more of its sensors.”) (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like.”)
Tsai does not disclose The automation controller as recited in claim 1, wherein respective computers of the first plurality of computers are configured to process sensor data from non-overlapping subsets of the plurality of sensors,
However, Ramezani does disclose The automation controller as recited in claim 1, wherein respective computers of the first plurality of computers are configured to process sensor data from non-overlapping subsets of the plurality of sensors, (Ramezani Column 12, line number 39-45: “In some implementations, the housing 255 includes multiple lidar sensors, each including a respective scanner and a receiver. Depending on the particular implementation, each of the multiple sensors can include a separate light source or a common light source. The multiple sensors can be configured to cover non-overlapping adjacent fields of regard”) (Ramezani Column 15, line number 50-58: “Data from each of the sensor heads 312 may be combined or stitched together to generate a point cloud that covers a greater than or equal to 30-degree horizontal view around a vehicle. For example, the laser 310 may include a controller or processor that receives data from each of the sensor heads 312 (e.g., via a corresponding electrical link 320) and processes the received data to construct a point cloud covering a 360-degree horizontal view around a vehicle or to determine distances to one or more targets.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsai to include The automation controller as recited in claim 1, wherein respective computers of the first plurality of computers are configured to process sensor data from non-overlapping subsets of the plurality of sensors, taught by Ramezani. This would have been for the benefit to include The method may include: processing, by one or more processors, a set of signals descriptive of a current state of an environment in which the autonomous vehicle is operating, wherein processing the set of signals includes assessing a set of risks associated with operation of the autonomous vehicle during a future time period. [Ramezani column 1, line number 51-56]
Regarding claim 3, Tsai in view of Ramezani discloses claim 2, accordingly the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated above.
Tsai does disclose and wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to provide fail operational protection for the further processing. (Tsai Paragraph 0026: “The feedback control system may be any system that uses one or more control programs to control one or more actuators in response to input from one or more of its sensors.”) (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like.”)
Tsai does not disclose The automation controller as recited in claim 2 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to further process a result of the processing of the non-overlapping subsets, wherein the further processing is performed over the data from the result as a whole,
Ramezani does disclose The automation controller as recited in claim 2 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to further process a result of the processing of the non-overlapping subsets, wherein the further processing is performed over the data from the result as a whole, (Ramezani Column 16, line number 9-11: “Still further, the vehicle controller 322 in some implementations communicates with a remote server to process point cloud data.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsai to include The automation controller as recited in claim 2 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to further process a result of the processing of the non-overlapping subsets, wherein the further processing is performed over the data from the result as a whole, taught by Ramezani. This would have been for the benefit to include The method may include: processing, by one or more processors, a set of signals descriptive of a current state of an environment in which the autonomous vehicle is operating, wherein processing the set of signals includes assessing a set of risks associated with operation of the autonomous vehicle during a future time period. [Ramezani column 1, line number 51-56]
Regarding claim 5, Tsai discloses wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to provide fail degraded operation protection to compute the plurality of trajectories. (Tsai Paragraph 0214: “Each instance then generates output actuation commands from its input sensor 100 data. For example, an autonomous vehicle 400 may generate navigation (e.g., steering and engine output) commands calculated from a predetermined path and obstacles detected by one or more of its cameras 468, 470, 472, 498.”) (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like.”)
Tsai does not disclose The automation controller as recited in claim 4 wherein respective computers of the first plurality of computers are configured to compute a plurality of trajectories from non-fully overlapping subsets of the plurality of potential actions.
However, Ramezani does disclose The automation controller as recited in claim 4 wherein respective computers of the first plurality of computers are configured to compute a plurality of trajectories from non-fully overlapping subsets of the plurality of potential actions. (Ramezani Column 20, line number 6-21: “The path plans as depicted in FIG. 7 and as discussed herein may be generated by a computing system, such as the computing system 600 of FIG. 6 (e.g., by the processor(s) 602 when executing the instructions 606 stored in memory 604), or by another suitable computing device or system. The timing diagram 700 depicts successively generated path plans, where the horizontal axis represents time in milliseconds (ms). The locations of the path plans along the horizontal axis correspond to when the respective path plan is to be executed. The path plans are generated according to the separate path plan implementation, whereby the computing system concurrently (or in an implementation, sequentially) generates a normal path plan and a safe path plan by processing sensor and/or other data descriptive of a current state of an environment in which the vehicle is operating”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsai to include The automation controller as recited in claim 4 wherein respective computers of the first plurality of computers are configured to compute a plurality of trajectories from non-fully overlapping subsets of the plurality of potential actions taught by Ramezani. This would have been for the benefit to include The method may include: processing, by one or more processors, a set of signals descriptive of a current state of an environment in which the autonomous vehicle is operating, wherein processing the set of signals includes assessing a set of risks associated with operation of the autonomous vehicle during a future time period. [Ramezani column 1, line number 51-56]
Regarding claim 12, Tsai discloses claim 11, accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated above.
Tsai does disclose and wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to provide fail degraded protection for processing of the sensor data from the subsets. (Tsai Paragraph 0026: “The feedback control system may be any system that uses one or more control programs to control one or more actuators in response to input from one or more of its sensors.”) (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like.”)
Tsai does not disclose The machine as recited in claim 11, wherein respective computers of the first plurality of computers are configured to process sensor data from non-overlapping subsets of the plurality of sensors,
However, Ramezani does disclose The machine as recited in claim 11, wherein respective computers of the first plurality of computers are configured to process sensor data from non-overlapping subsets of the plurality of sensors, (Ramezani Column 12, line number 39-45: “In some implementations, the housing 255 includes multiple lidar sensors, each including a respective scanner and a receiver. Depending on the particular implementation, each of the multiple sensors can include a separate light source or a common light source. The multiple sensors can be configured to cover non-overlapping adjacent fields of regard”) (Ramezani Column 15, line number 50-58: “Data from each of the sensor heads 312 may be combined or stitched together to generate a point cloud that covers a greater than or equal to 30-degree horizontal view around a vehicle. For example, the laser 310 may include a controller or processor that receives data from each of the sensor heads 312 (e.g., via a corresponding electrical link 320) and processes the received data to construct a point cloud covering a 360-degree horizontal view around a vehicle or to determine distances to one or more targets.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsai to include The machine as recited in claim 11, wherein respective computers of the first plurality of computers are configured to process sensor data from non-overlapping subsets of the plurality of sensors, taught by Ramezani. This would have been for the benefit to include The method may include: processing, by one or more processors, a set of signals descriptive of a current state of an environment in which the autonomous vehicle is operating, wherein processing the set of signals includes assessing a set of risks associated with operation of the autonomous vehicle during a future time period. [Ramezani column 1, line number 51-56]
Regarding claim 13, Tsai in view of Ramezani discloses claim 12, accordingly the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated above.
Tsai does disclose and wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to provide fail operational protection for the further processing. (Tsai Paragraph 0026: “The feedback control system may be any system that uses one or more control programs to control one or more actuators in response to input from one or more of its sensors.”) (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like.”)
Tsai does not disclose The machine as recited in claim 12 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to further process a result of the processing of the non-overlapping subsets, wherein the further processing is performed over the data from the result as a whole,
Ramezani does disclose The machine as recited in claim 12 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to further process a result of the processing of the non-overlapping subsets, wherein the further processing is performed over the data from the result as a whole, (Ramezani Column 16, line number 9-11: “Still further, the vehicle controller 322 in some implementations communicates with a remote server to process point cloud data.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsai to include The machine as recited in claim 12 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to further process a result of the processing of the non-overlapping subsets, wherein the further processing is performed over the data from the result as a whole, taught by Ramezani. This would have been for the benefit to include The method may include: processing, by one or more processors, a set of signals descriptive of a current state of an environment in which the autonomous vehicle is operating, wherein processing the set of signals includes assessing a set of risks associated with operation of the autonomous vehicle during a future time period. [Ramezani column 1, line number 51-56]
Regarding claim 15, Tsai discloses wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to provide fail degraded operation protection to compute the plurality of trajectories. (Tsai Paragraph 0214: “Each instance then generates output actuation commands from its input sensor 100 data. For example, an autonomous vehicle 400 may generate navigation (e.g., steering and engine output) commands calculated from a predetermined path and obstacles detected by one or more of its cameras 468, 470, 472, 498.”) (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like.”)
Tsai does not disclose The machine as recited in claim 14 wherein respective computers of the first plurality of computers are configured to compute a plurality of trajectories from non-fully overlapping subsets of the plurality of potential actions […].
However, Ramezani does disclose The machine as recited in claim 14 wherein respective computers of the first plurality of computers are configured to compute a plurality of trajectories from non-fully overlapping subsets of the plurality of potential actions […]. (Ramezani Column 20, line number 6-21: “The path plans as depicted in FIG. 7 and as discussed herein may be generated by a computing system, such as the computing system 600 of FIG. 6 (e.g., by the processor(s) 602 when executing the instructions 606 stored in memory 604), or by another suitable computing device or system. The timing diagram 700 depicts successively generated path plans, where the horizontal axis represents time in milliseconds (ms). The locations of the path plans along the horizontal axis correspond to when the respective path plan is to be executed. The path plans are generated according to the separate path plan implementation, whereby the computing system concurrently (or in an implementation, sequentially) generates a normal path plan and a safe path plan by processing sensor and/or other data descriptive of a current state of an environment in which the vehicle is operating”) (Ramezani column 27, line number 11-20: “Each motion primitive may represent a single movement to be undertaken by the vehicle. A set of motion primitives may, in totality, reflect a set of movements to be undertaken by the vehicle with the intention of safely stopping the vehicle. The computing device may determine each motion primitive individually, and may concatenate the determined motion primitives to be executed sequentially. Accordingly, the concatenated motion primitives may represent a safe path plan for the vehicle (e.g., one or more of the safe path plans shown in FIG. 7 or 8).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsai to include The machine as recited in claim 14 wherein respective computers of the first plurality of computers are configured to compute a plurality of trajectories from non-fully overlapping subsets of the plurality of potential actions […] taught by Ramezani. This would have been for the benefit to include The method may include: processing, by one or more processors, a set of signals descriptive of a current state of an environment in which the autonomous vehicle is operating, wherein processing the set of signals includes assessing a set of risks associated with operation of the autonomous vehicle during a future time period. [Ramezani column 1, line number 51-56]
8. Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 20220048525 A1) in view of (US 20200148201 A1) to King et al. (hereinafter King) .
Regarding claim 6, Tsai discloses claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Tsai does not disclose The automation controller as recited in claim 1 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to evaluate a plurality of trajectories against a predetermined cost function to select the output trajectory, wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to check the output trajectory to ensure that the output trajectory has at least a specified minimum probability of avoiding a collision, and wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to provide fail operational protection to evaluate the plurality of trajectories to select the output trajectory and to ensure that the output trajectory has at least the specified minimum probability.
However, King does disclose The automation controller as recited in claim 1 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to evaluate a plurality of trajectories against a predetermined cost function to select the output trajectory, (King Paragraph 0046: “As illustrated, the secondary system 108 includes an estimation and validation component 210, a data processing component(s) 212, a localization component 214, a perception/prediction component 216, a trajectory validation component 218, a trajectory modification component 220, and a trajectory selection component 222. In examples, the estimation and validation component 210, the data processing component(s) 212, the localization component 214, the perception/prediction component 216, the trajectory validation component 218, the trajectory modification component 220, and/or the trajectory selection component 222 may implement a model that is based on physics and/or statistics.”) wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to check the output trajectory to ensure that the output trajectory has at least a specified minimum probability of avoiding a collision, (King Paragraph 0061: “The trajectory validation component 218 may validate a trajectory of the autonomous vehicle 102 received from the primary system 106. For example, the trajectory validation component 218 may determine if a trajectory is collision-free. Here, the trajectory validation component 218 may compare a trajectory of the autonomous vehicle 102 (e.g., an estimated path if the autonomous vehicle 102 maintains the trajectory) with data received from the perception/prediction component 216 (e.g., secondary perception data, data regarding a track of an object, etc.). If the comparison indicates that the trajectory of the autonomous vehicle 102 will intersect with a track or predicted trajectory of an object (or a probability of the intersection is above a threshold), the trajectory validation component 218 may determine that the trajectory is invalid.”) and wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to provide fail operational protection to evaluate the plurality of trajectories to select the output trajectory and to ensure that the output trajectory has at least the specified minimum probability. (King Paragraph 0069: “In some examples, even if a trajectory is invalid, the trajectory validation component 218 may cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to proceed along the trajectory. For instance, if the trajectory validation component 218 determines that a size of the object is smaller than a predetermined size (or is classified as a particular type of object, if such information is available), the trajectory validation component 218 may send a signal to the trajectory selection component 222 to proceed along the trajectory. To illustrate, the trajectory validation component 218 may determine that a trajectory will intersect a track of an object, but that the object is the size of a baseball. Here, it may be safer to continue along the trajectory than to decelerate, since the autonomous vehicle 102 would likely run over the object without any collision.”) (Note: the vehicle continuing on a trajectory regardless of the trajectory being invalid id fail operational protection.) (Note: because it is determined the object is small and the minimum probability of getting into a collision is not likely the vehicle continues to follow the desired path.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsai to include The automation controller as recited in claim 1 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to evaluate a plurality of trajectories against a predetermined cost function to select the output trajectory, wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to check the output trajectory to ensure that the output trajectory has at least a specified minimum probability of avoiding a collision, and wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to provide fail operational protection to evaluate the plurality of trajectories to select the output trajectory and to ensure that the output trajectory has at least the specified minimum probability taught by King. This would have been for the benefit to include a vehicle including a primary system for controlling the vehicle and a secondary system that operates on the vehicle to validate operation of the primary system and to control the vehicle to avoid collisions. [King Paragraph 0008]
Regarding claim 16, Tsai discloses claim 15, accordingly the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated above.
Tsai does not disclose The machine as recited in claim 15 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to evaluate a plurality of trajectories against a predetermined cost function to select the output trajectory, wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to check the output trajectory to ensure that the output trajectory has at least a specified minimum probability of avoiding a collision, and wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to provide fail operational protection to evaluate the plurality of trajectories to select the output trajectory and to ensure that the output trajectory has at least the specified minimum probability.
However, King does disclose The machine as recited in claim 15 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to evaluate a plurality of trajectories against a predetermined cost function to select the output trajectory, (King Paragraph 0046: “As illustrated, the secondary system 108 includes an estimation and validation component 210, a data processing component(s) 212, a localization component 214, a perception/prediction component 216, a trajectory validation component 218, a trajectory modification component 220, and a trajectory selection component 222. In examples, the estimation and validation component 210, the data processing component(s) 212, the localization component 214, the perception/prediction component 216, the trajectory validation component 218, the trajectory modification component 220, and/or the trajectory selection component 222 may implement a model that is based on physics and/or statistics.”) wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to check the output trajectory to ensure that the output trajectory has at least a specified minimum probability of avoiding a collision, (King Paragraph 0061: “The trajectory validation component 218 may validate a trajectory of the autonomous vehicle 102 received from the primary system 106. For example, the trajectory validation component 218 may determine if a trajectory is collision-free. Here, the trajectory validation component 218 may compare a trajectory of the autonomous vehicle 102 (e.g., an estimated path if the autonomous vehicle 102 maintains the trajectory) with data received from the perception/prediction component 216 (e.g., secondary perception data, data regarding a track of an object, etc.). If the comparison indicates that the trajectory of the autonomous vehicle 102 will intersect with a track or predicted trajectory of an object (or a probability of the intersection is above a threshold), the trajectory validation component 218 may determine that the trajectory is invalid.”) and wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to provide fail operational protection to evaluate the plurality of trajectories to select the output trajectory and to ensure that the output trajectory has at least the specified minimum probability. (King Paragraph 0069: “In some examples, even if a trajectory is invalid, the trajectory validation component 218 may cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to proceed along the trajectory. For instance, if the trajectory validation component 218 determines that a size of the object is smaller than a predetermined size (or is classified as a particular type of object, if such information is available), the trajectory validation component 218 may send a signal to the trajectory selection component 222 to proceed along the trajectory. To illustrate, the trajectory validation component 218 may determine that a trajectory will intersect a track of an object, but that the object is the size of a baseball. Here, it may be safer to continue along the trajectory than to decelerate, since the autonomous vehicle 102 would likely run over the object without any collision.”) (Note: the vehicle continuing on a trajectory regardless of the trajectory being invalid id fail operational protection.) (Note: because it is determined the object is small and the minimum probability of getting into a collision is not likely the vehicle continues to follow the desired path.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsai to include The machine as recited in claim 15 wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to evaluate a plurality of trajectories against a predetermined cost function to select the output trajectory, wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to check the output trajectory to ensure that the output trajectory has at least a specified minimum probability of avoiding a collision, and wherein the first plurality of computers are configured to provide fail operational protection to evaluate the plurality of trajectories to select the output trajectory and to ensure that the output trajectory has at least the specified minimum probability taught by King. This would have been for the benefit to include a vehicle including a primary system for controlling the vehicle and a secondary system that operates on the vehicle to validate operation of the primary system and to control the vehicle to avoid collisions. [King Paragraph 0008]
9. Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 20220048525 A1) in view of (US 20210144207 A1) to Yasay et al. (hereinafter Yasay) further in view of Ramezani (US 10394243 B1) and further in view of King (US 20200148201 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Tsai discloses A method comprising: […] providing fail degraded protection […] (Tsai Paragraph 0026: “The feedback control system may be any system that uses one or more control programs to control one or more actuators in response to input from one or more of its sensors.”) (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like.”); centrally processing, by the first plurality of computers, […], providing fail operational protection during the centrally processing; generating, by the first plurality of computers, (Tsai Paragraph 0208: “distributed between different processors of different types (e.g., central processing units, graphics processing units, fixed function units, etc.”) (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “If a hardware fault is detected, the checker 140 may signal the presence of a fault (Step 850) and/or take any other desired action. As one example, checker 140 may discard actuation commands corresponding to the detected fault, for as long as the fault is determined to exist.”) a plurality of potential actions for a machine based on a plurality of objects surrounding the machine identified by the […] and centrally processing (Tsai Paragraph 0025: “Each instance 120, 130 receives as input sensor data from one or more sensors 100 via sensor distributor 110, and generates as output one or more actuation commands directing actuation of the system in response to its detected environment.”) (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like. Any one or more actions are contemplated.”; […] providing fail degraded protection during the generating the plurality of potential trajectories; (Tsai Paragraph 0214: “Each instance then generates output actuation commands from its input sensor 100 data. For example, an autonomous vehicle 400 may generate navigation (e.g., steering and engine output) commands calculated from a predetermined path and obstacles detected by one or more of its cameras 468, 470, 472, 498.”) (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like.”) […] providing fail operational protection during the evaluating. (Tsai Paragraph 0216: “As another example, checker 140 may initiate an action of the feedback control system, such as entering the system into a safe or protected mode, disabling particular actuators, maintaining the output of actuators at the last level or setting prior to the hardware fault, or the like. If the feedback control system is an autonomous vehicle 400, for instance, a checker 140 may initiate an alarm or alert, switch to a different redundant or backup processor if one is available, initiate a vehicle 400 action such as braking, pulling over, shutdown, or the like.”)
Tsai does not disclose zonally processing sensor data from a plurality of sensors in respective computers of a first plurality of computers, during the zonally processing, generating a plurality of potential trajectories by the first plurality of computers based on the plurality of potential actions, and evaluating, by the first plurality of computers, the plurality of potential trajectories to select on output trajectory, zonally processing.
However, Yasay does disclose zonally processing sensor data from a plurality of sensors in respective computers of a first plurality of computers, during the zonally processing, zonally processing. (Yasay Paragraph 0019: “The disclosed architecture also integrates well with zonal architectures used in modern automotive data processing systems”) (Yasay Paragraph 0025: “As noted above, sensors 24 may comprise, for example, video cameras, velocity sensors, accelerometers, audio sensors, infra-red sensors, radar sensors, lidar sensors, ultrasonic sensors, rangefinders or other proximity sensors, or any other suitable sensor type. In the present example, each ECU 32 (sometimes referred to as a “zone ECU”) is connected to the sensors installed in a respective zone of the vehicle.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsai to include zonally processing sensor data from a plurality of sensors in respective computers of a first plurality of computers, during the zonally processing, zonally processing taught by Yasay. This would have been for the benefit which provides an automotive data storage system disposed in a vehicle. The system includes a packet network and at least one centralized storage device. [Yasay Paragraph 0005]
Yasay does not disclose generating a plurality of potential trajectories by the first plurality of computers based on the plurality of potential actions and evaluating, by the first plurality of computers, the plurality of potential trajectories to select on output trajectory.
However, Ramezani does disclose generating a plurality of potential trajectories by the first plurality of computers based on the plurality of potential actions, (Ramezani column 27, line number 11-20: “Each motion primitive may represent a single movement to be undertaken by the vehicle. A set of motion primitives may, in totality, reflect a set of movements to be undertaken by the vehicle with the intention of safely stopping the vehicle. The computing device may determine each motion primitive individually, and may concatenate the determined motion primitives to be executed sequentially. Accordingly, the concatenated motion primitives may represent a safe path plan for the vehicle (e.g., one or more of the safe path plans shown in FIG. 7 or 8).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsai in view of Yasay to include generating a plurality of potential trajectories by the first plurality of computers based on the plurality of potential actions,, taught by Ramezani. This would have been for the benefit to include The method may include: processing, by one or more processors, a set of signals descriptive of a current state of an environment in which the autonomous vehicle is operating, wherein processing the set of signals includes assessing a set of risks associated with operation of the autonomous vehicle during a future time period. [Ramezani column 1, line number 51-56]
Ramezani does not disclose and evaluating, by the first plurality of computers, the plurality of potential trajectories to select on output trajectory.
However, King does disclose and evaluating, by the first plurality of computers, the plurality of potential trajectories to select on output trajectory, (King Paragraph 0021: “Further, in examples, the secondary system 108 may receive information from the primary system 106 indicating tracks of objects that are detected by the primary system 106 and/or predicted trajectories of the objects”) (King Paragraph 0068: “In some examples, the trajectory validation component 218 may evaluate a main trajectory of the autonomous vehicle 102, and evaluate a contingent trajectory of the autonomous vehicle 102 if the main trajectory is invalid. For example, upon determining that a main trajectory is invalid using any of the techniques discussed herein, the trajectory validation component 218 may determine if a contingent trajectory is valid. If the contingent trajectory is valid, the trajectory modification component 220 may send a signal to the trajectory selection component 222 to use the contingent trajectory. If the contingent trajectory is invalid, the trajectory modification component 220 may send a signal to the trajectory modification component 220 to modify the main trajectory (or the contingent trajectory).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsai in view of Yasay and further in view of Ramezani to include and evaluating, by the first plurality of computers, the plurality of potential trajectories to select on output trajectory, taught by King. This would have been for the benefit to include a vehicle including a primary system for controlling the vehicle and a secondary system that operates on the vehicle to validate operation of the primary system and to control the vehicle to avoid collisions. [King Paragraph 0008]
Regarding claim 20, Tsai in view of Yasay further in view of Ramezani and further in view of King discloses claim 19, accordingly, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated above.
Tsai discloses The method as recited in claim 19 further comprising controlling a plurality of actuators in the machine to follow the output trajectory by a second plurality of computers, wherein the second plurality of computers provide dual lock step, double redundant fail operational protection. (Tsai Paragraph 0037: “The feedback control system of FIG. 3 may be any system capable of actuation in response to an input to any of its sensors. As one example, the system of FIG. 3 may be a robotic actuator capable of actuation according to input force or various environmental variables. As another example, the system of FIG. 3 may be an autonomous vehicle capable of self-directed driving in response to a path calculated from its environment and a desired destination,”) (Tsai Paragraph 0090: “In a safety mode, the two or more cores may operate in a lockstep mode and function as a single core with comparison logic to detect any differences between their operations.”)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. 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.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664