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 arguments filed on August 28, 2026, and claims filed on May 13, 2026. Claims 1 and 3-21 are currently pending.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s arguments, filed August 28, 2026, the Examiner maintains the previous claim interpretation, and withdraws 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 28, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1 and 3-21 under Lepird, in view of Margosian, Clarke, Lurie, and Gallo, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Clarke, in view of Gallo, Hayes, and Lurie.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 8 recite “wherein the conflict with a forecast …” and should read “wherein the conflict with the forecast …”.
Claim 8 recites “responsive to at least one of the conflict with the forecast or the conflict with the instruction;.” and should read “responsive to at least one of the conflict with the forecast or the conflict with the instruction.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Claims 1, 8, 15 recite “a first monitor …”, and “a second monitor …”
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 recite “a third monitor …”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
Regarding the limitations of “a first monitor …”, the instant Specification at Paragraph [0062] at least states “the on-bard computing system 320 of a vehicle … evaluates an output of a first monitor (e.g., perception monitor 304b etc.) configured to identify conflicts generated by a first processor (e.g., perception module 302a, etc.)…”. As such, the Examiner is interpreting a first monitor to be a software or hardware program stored on a computing device, for executing certain vehicle functions.
Regarding the limitations of “a second monitor …”, the instant Specification at Paragraph [0066] at least states “on-board computing system 320 … evaluates an output of a second monitor (e.g., planning monitor 302b, etc.) configured to identify conflicts with instructions … generated by a second processor (e.g., planning module 304a, etc.) …”. As such, the Examiner is interpreting a second monitor to be a software or hardware program stored on a computing device, for executing certain vehicle functions.
Regarding the limitations of “a third monitor …”, the instant Specification at Paragraph [0068] at least states “the on- board computing system 320 … providing to a third monitor (e.g., diagnostic monitor 306, etc.) … an indication of the operational state, and …provides an instruction to at least one vehicle controller (e.g., vehicle control system 322, etc.) for the vehicle …”. As such, the Examiner is interpreting a second monitor to be a software or hardware program stored on a computing device, for executing certain vehicle functions.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 3-5, 8-12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0153735 A1, to Clarke, et al (hereinafter referred to as Clarke; previously of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0153262 A1, to Gallo, et al (hereinafter referred to as Gallo; previously of record), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0316742 A1, to Hayes, et al (hereinafter referred to as Hayes; newly of record).
As per Claim 1, Clarke discloses the features of a method (e.g. Paragraphs [0012], [0088]; where a method is provided for navigating a vehicle), comprising:
evaluating, by one or more computing devices of a vehicle, an output of a first monitor (e.g. Paragraphs [0089], [0133]; where the system (100) may include a processing unit (110), an image acquisition unit (120), a position sensor (130), one or more memory units (140, 150), a map database (160), and a user interface (170); and where the processing unit (110) may include one or more processing devices; and where the system may collect data for analysis and determine whether or not the vehicle should take a certain action) configured to
independently analyze perception information that indicates the possible presence of objects against forecasts for objects in proximity to the vehicle generated by a first processor based on perception information (e.g. Paragraphs [0140]-[0142], [0158]; where a first processing device may receive images form the vehicle cameras and perform vision processing to detect other vehicles, pedestrians, lane marks, traffic signs, traffic lights, and other road objects; and where the third processing device may execute additional processing instructions to analyze images to identify the objects moving in the image, such as a vehicle changing lanes, pedestrians, etc.) to
determine whether there is a conflict with a forecast for an object of the objects in the proximity (e.g. Paragraphs [0158], [0308], [0316], [0329]; where the system (100) monitors the vicinity around the vehicle (200) to include monitoring a collision threshold, a minimum predetermined distance between the vehicle (200) and other traffic, or the trajectory of an encroaching vehicle to determine that an encroaching vehicle has crossed at least one collision threshold (i.e. identifies conflicts) or determine a time to or risk of collision); wherein
the conflict with a forecast is indicative of an inconsistency between the forecasted presence the object and a perceived presence of the object (e.g. Paragraphs [0155], [0157], [0166], [0256]; where the processing unit (110) may compare the estimated number of traffic lights at an intersection with the actual number of traffic lights appearing at the junction to determine a confidence level associated with the detection (i.e., determines inconsistencies between forecasted and actual perceived objects); and where the processing unit (110) may reduce the probability of missing (i.e., generates a conflict) a candidate object representing a vehicle or pedestrian, and the processing unit (110) may estimate parameters for the detected object and compare the object’s frame-by-frame position data to a predicted position (i.e., determines a conflict with perceived and estimated parameters));
evaluating, by the one or more computing devices of the vehicle, an output of a second monitor (e.g. Paragraph [0089]; where the system (100) may include a processing unit (110), an image acquisition unit (120), a position sensor (130), one or more memory units (140, 150), a map database (160), and a user interface (170); and where the processing unit (110) may include one or more processing devices) configured to
independently analyze the perception information against instructions for controlling operations of the vehicle generated by a second processor based on the perception information to determine whether there is a conflict with an instruction of the instructions for controlling the operations of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0150], [0223], [0286], [0308]; where the system (100) may provide driver assist functionality that monitors the vicinity around the vehicle (200) and aborts lane changes in the event that the lane change is deemed to be a risk of causing a collision (i.e. conflict with instructions), such as with another vehicle; and where the processing unit (110) may execute instructions associated with the velocity and acceleration module (406) to calculate a target speed for the vehicle or to take actions, such as determining if it is safe to make a lane change); and
maneuvering the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0133], [0190]; where the processing unit (110) may initiate or activate an offset maneuver to bypass an object or initiate braking actions, and automatically take the determined action by controlling braking, acceleration, and/or steering of the vehicle) by
providing, by the one or more computing devices of the vehicle, an instruction to the vehicle responsive to at least one of the conflict with the forecast or the conflict with the instruction (e.g. Paragraphs [0226], [0286], [0308], [0313]; where the system (100) may cause the vehicle (200) to take evasive action to avoid encroaching traffic, to include braking, changing lanes, or otherwise altering the course of the vehicle; and where instructions are provided that cause the processing unit to execute the instruction) ‘…’.
Gallo, in a similar field of endeavor, more explicitly teaches the features of wherein the conflict with a forecast is indicative of an inconsistency between the forecasted presence the object and a perceived presence of the object.
Gallo teaches a method for object detection and collision avoidance, where the vehicle itself decides whether to heed a result from a primary computer or a secondary computer (e.g., a first control or a second controller), when the vehicle detects faults in perception and dynamic driving tasks (e.g. Paragraph [0233]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the method for detecting and responding to traffic in the system of Clarke, with the feature of determining a conflict with a forecast in the system of Gallo, in order to more accurately determine true positive detections of objects (see at least Paragraph [0190] of Gallo).
Clarke, in view of Gallo, fails to teach every feature of continuously monitoring, by the one or more computing devices of the vehicle, a heartbeat signal generated by a diagnostic device, wherein the heartbeat signal is configured to synchronize the one or more computing devices of the vehicle; and responsive to failing to receive the heartbeat signal over a predefined interval, ignoring the instruction and maneuvering the vehicle with overriding instructions.
However, Hayes, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for handling errors in an autonomous vehicle, where the system determines an error state of the autonomous vehicle, where the error state includes a failure to receive a driving decision and/or updated remediation sequence from the automation computing system (116), and may include a failure to receive a heartbeat message or other signal at a predefined interval or for a predefined duration; and when the error state has been reached, the system executes a remediation sequence, which may be overridden when one or more conditions are satisfied, which includes if the autonomous vehicle exists in the error state (e.g. Paragraphs [0053], [0055]-[0056], [0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the method for detecting and responding to traffic in the system of Clarke, in view of Gallo, with the feature of monitoring a heartbeat signal in the system of Hayes, in order to override a determined driving decision (see at least Paragraph [0058] of Hayes).
As per Claim 8, Clarke discloses the features of a computing system for a vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0093]; where the processing unit may include various devices, such as a controller, an image preprocessor, a central processing unit (CPU), and the CPU may comprise any number of microcontrollers or microprocessors), comprising:
memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory (e.g. Paragraphs [0089]-[0090]; where the processors may include various types of processing devices, such as a central processing unit (CPU) for running applications and for image analysis, the processors may include single or multi-core processing; and may comprise one or more memory units) and configured to perform operations comprising:
evaluating an output of a first monitor (e.g. Paragraphs [0089], [0133]; where the system (100) may include a processing unit (110), an image acquisition unit (120), a position sensor (130), one or more memory units (140, 150), a map database (160), and a user interface (170); and where the processing unit (110) may include one or more processing devices; and where the system may collect data for analysis and determine whether or not the vehicle should take a certain action) configured to
independently analyze perception information that indicates the possible presence of objects against forecasts for objects in proximity to the vehicle generated by a first processor based on the perception information (e.g. Paragraphs [0140]-[0142], [0158]; where a first processing device may receive images form the vehicle cameras and perform vision processing to detect other vehicles, pedestrians, lane marks, traffic signs, traffic lights, and other road objects; and where the third processing device may execute additional processing instructions to analyze images to identify the objects moving in the image, such as a vehicle changing lanes, pedestrians, etc.) to
determine whether there is a conflict with a forecast for an object of the objects in the proximity (e.g. Paragraphs [0158], [0308], [0316], [0329]; where the system (100) monitors the vicinity around the vehicle (200) to include monitoring a collision threshold, a minimum predetermined distance between the vehicle (200) and other traffic, or the trajectory of an encroaching vehicle to determine that an encroaching vehicle has crossed at least one collision threshold (i.e. identifies conflicts) or determine a time to or risk of collision, wherein
the conflict with a forecast is indicative of an inconsistency between the forecasted presence the object and a perceived presence of the object (e.g. Paragraphs [0155], [0157], [0166], [0256]; where the processing unit (110) may compare the estimated number of traffic lights at an intersection with the actual number of traffic lights appearing at the junction to determine a confidence level associated with the detection (i.e., determines inconsistencies between forecasted and actual perceived objects); and where the processing unit (110) may reduce the probability of missing (i.e., generates a conflict) a candidate object representing a vehicle or pedestrian, and the processing unit (110) may estimate parameters for the detected object and compare the object’s frame-by-frame position data to a predicted position (i.e., determines a conflict with perceived and estimated parameters));
evaluating an output of a second monitor (e.g. Paragraph [0089]; where the system (100) may include a processing unit (110), an image acquisition unit (120), a position sensor (130), one or more memory units (140, 150), a map database (160), and a user interface (170); and where the processing unit (110) may include one or more processing devices) configured to
independently analyze the perception information against instructions for controlling operations of the vehicle generated by a second processor based on the perception information to determine whether there is a conflict with an instruction of the instructions for controlling the operations of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0150], [0223], [0286], [0308]; where the system (100) may provide driver assist functionality that monitors the vicinity around the vehicle (200) and aborts lane changes in the event that the lane change is deemed to be a risk of causing a collision (i.e. conflict with instructions), such as with another vehicle; and where the processing unit (110) may execute instructions associated with the velocity and acceleration module (406) to calculate a target speed for the vehicle or to take actions, such as determining if it is safe to make a lane change); ‘…’ and
maneuvering the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0133], [0190]; where the processing unit (110) may initiate or activate an offset maneuver to bypass an object or initiate braking actions, and automatically take the determined action by controlling braking, acceleration, and/or steering of the vehicle) by
providing an instruction to the vehicle responsive to at least one of the conflict with the forecast or the conflict with the instruction (e.g. Paragraphs [0226], [0286], [0308], [0313]; where the system (100) may cause the vehicle (200) to take evasive action to avoid encroaching traffic, to include braking, changing lanes, or otherwise altering the course of the vehicle; and where instructions are provided that cause the processing unit to execute the instruction).
Gallo, in a similar field of endeavor, more explicitly teaches the features of wherein the conflict with a forecast is indicative of an inconsistency between the forecasted presence the object and a perceived presence of the object.
Gallo teaches a method for object detection and collision avoidance, where the vehicle itself decides whether to heed a result from a primary computer or a secondary computer (e.g., a first control or a second controller), when the vehicle detects faults in perception and dynamic driving tasks (e.g. Paragraph [0233]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the method for detecting and responding to traffic in the system of Clarke, with the feature of determining a conflict with a forecast in the system of Gallo, in order to more accurately determine true positive detections of objects (see at least Paragraph [0190] of Gallo).
Clarke fails to disclose every feature of wherein the conflict with an instruction of the instructions is indicative of a first instruction for the vehicle to perform a first maneuver conflicting with a second instruction for the vehicle to perform a second maneuver different from the first maneuver.
However, Hayes, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for handling errors in an autonomous vehicle, where the system determines an error state of the autonomous vehicle, where the error state includes a failure to receive a driving decision and/or updated remediation sequence from the automation computing system (116), where the error state may also include receiving a driving decision including one or more invalid operational commands which may violate one or more rules, and the system executes a remediation sequence sending one or more control signals to actuators or other components of steering, braking, and/or acceleration systems (i.e., a conflict with instructions) (e.g. Paragraphs [0053], [0055]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the method for detecting and responding to traffic in the system of Clarke, with the feature of determining a conflict in instructions in the system of Hayes, in order to override a determined driving decision (see at least Paragraph [0058] of Hayes).
As per Claim 3, and similarly for Claim 10, Clarke, in view of Gallo and Hayes, teaches the features of Claims 1 and 8, respectively, and Clarke further discloses the features of wherein the providing the instruction for causing the vehicle to execute the maneuver comprises:
identifying, by the one or more computing devices of the vehicle, at least one of a first level of criticality for the conflict with the forecast for the object or a second level of criticality for the conflict with the instruction for controlling the operation of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0338]-[0339], [0355]; where when the risk of collision rises above a predetermined level, the system (100) may cause a response, such as braking, and when the risk of collision is even higher (e.g., where the system (100) determines that a collision would be imminent without evasive action), the system may cause the vehicle to take an evasive action, such as maximum braking, change of direction, etc.; and where the system (100) may associate different reaction zones with different degrees of responsive actions, such as taking no action when the target vehicle is within a first threshold, taking medium action when the target vehicle is within a second threshold, and taking a more dramatic action when the target vehicle is within a third threshold (i.e. level of criticality)); and
providing, by the one or more computing devices of the vehicle, based on at least one of the first level of criticality or the second level of criticality, the instruction for causing the vehicle to execute the maneuver to at least one vehicle controller for the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0255], [0355]; where the system (100) may change the current velocity to the initial target velocity according to any particular braking profile (e.g., a braking profile calling for a high level of braking for the first two seconds, and a low level of braking for the subsequent three seconds) (i.e. a criticality level is determined); and where when the risk of collision rises above a predetermined level, the system (100) may cause a response, such as braking, and when the risk of collision is even higher (e.g., where the system (100) determines that a collision would be imminent without evasive action), the system may cause the vehicle to take an evasive action, such as maximum braking, change of direction, etc.).
As per Claim 4, and similarly for Claim 11, Clarke, in view of Gallo and Hayes, teaches the features of Claims 3 and 10, respectively, and Clarke further discloses the features of wherein the at least one vehicle controller for the vehicle is mapped to at least one of the first level of criticality or the second level of criticality (e.g. Paragraphs [0255], [0355]; where the system (100) may change the current velocity to the initial target velocity according to any particular braking profile (e.g., a braking profile calling for a high level of braking for the first two seconds, and a low level of braking for the subsequent three seconds) (i.e. a criticality level is determined); and where when the risk of collision rises above a predetermined level, the system (100) may cause a response, such as braking, and when the risk of collision is even higher (e.g., where the system (100) determines that a collision would be imminent without evasive action), the system may cause the vehicle to take an evasive action, such as maximum braking, change of direction, etc.).
As per Claim 5, and similarly for Claim 12, Clarke, in view of Gallo and Hayes, teaches the features of Claims 1 and 8, respectively, and Clarke further discloses the features of further comprising:
providing, by the one or more computing devices of the vehicle, an instruction to at least one vehicle controller for the vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0338]; where if the risk of collision is low, the system (100) may disregard movements by a target vehicle (200b), such that the primary vehicle may not respond to movements or actions of the target vehicle when there is not a risk of collision) to
ignore the instruction for causing the maneuver for the vehicle based on a determination that at least one of: the determined conflict with the instruction for controlling the operation of the vehicle is invalid or the determined conflict with the forecast for the object is invalid (e.g. Paragraphs [0155]; [0338]; where the processing unit (110) may filter the set of candidate objects to exclude certain candidates (e.g., irrelevant or less relevant objects); where if the risk of collision is low, the system (100) may disregard movements by a target vehicle (200b), such that the primary vehicle may not respond to movements or actions of the target vehicle when there is not a risk of collision (i.e. the forecast of a collision is invalid).
As per Claim 9, Clarke, in view of Hayes, teaches the features of Claim 8, and Clarke further discloses the features of wherein the perception information is generated by one or more sensors associated with the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0133], [0139]-[0142]; where the system may analyze image data, position data, map data, speed data, and/or data from sensors included with the vehicle to determine whether or not the vehicle should take a certain action).
As per Claim 21, Clarke, in view of Gallo and Hayes, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Hayes further teaches the features of wherein the conflict with an instruction of the instructions is indicative of a first instruction for the vehicle to perform a first maneuver conflicting with a second instruction for the vehicle to perform a second maneuver incompatible with the first maneuver.
Hayes teaches a method for handling errors in an autonomous vehicle, where the system determines an error state of the autonomous vehicle, where the error state includes a failure to receive a driving decision and/or updated remediation sequence from the automation computing system (116), where the error state may also include receiving a driving decision including one or more invalid operational commands which may violate one or more rules, and the system executes a remediation sequence sending one or more control signals to actuators or other components of steering, braking, and/or acceleration systems (i.e., a conflict with instructions) (e.g. Paragraphs [0053], [0055]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the method for detecting and responding to traffic in the system of Clarke, with the feature of determining a conflict in instructions in the system of Hayes, in order to override a determined driving decision (see at least Paragraph [0058] of Hayes).
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0153735 A1, to Clarke, et al (hereinafter referred to as Clarke; previously of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0316742 A1, to Hayes, et al (hereinafter referred to as Hayes; newly of record).
As per Claim 15, Clarke discloses the features of a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a computing system for a vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0031], [0089]-[0090]; where the processors may include various types of processing devices, such as a central processing unit (CPU) for running applications and for image analysis, the processors may include single or multi-core processing; and may comprise one or more memory units; and where the system may comprise non-transitory computer-readable storage media which may store program instructions, which are executed by at least one processing device), cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
evaluating an output of a first monitor (e.g. Paragraphs [0089], [0133]; where the system (100) may include a processing unit (110), an image acquisition unit (120), a position sensor (130), one or more memory units (140, 150), a map database (160), and a user interface (170); and where the processing unit (110) may include one or more processing devices; and where the system may collect data for analysis and determine whether or not the vehicle should take a certain action) configured to
independently analyze perception information that indicates the possible presence of objects against forecasts for objects in proximity to the vehicle generated by a first processor based on the perception information (e.g. Paragraphs [0140]-[0142], [0158]; where a first processing device may receive images form the vehicle cameras and perform vision processing to detect other vehicles, pedestrians, lane marks, traffic signs, traffic lights, and other road objects; and where the third processing device may execute additional processing instructions to analyze images to identify the objects moving in the image, such as a vehicle changing lanes, pedestrians, etc.) to
determine whether there is a conflict with a forecast for an object of the objects in the proximity (e.g. Paragraphs [0158], [0308], [0316], [0329]; where the system (100) monitors the vicinity around the vehicle (200) to include monitoring a collision threshold, a minimum predetermined distance between the vehicle (200) and other traffic, or the trajectory of an encroaching vehicle to determine that an encroaching vehicle has crossed at least one collision threshold (i.e. identifies conflicts) or determine a time to or risk of collision);
evaluating an output of a second monitor (e.g. Paragraph [0089]; where the system (100) may include a processing unit (110), an image acquisition unit (120), a position sensor (130), one or more memory units (140, 150), a map database (160), and a user interface (170); and where the processing unit (110) may include one or more processing devices) configured to
independently analyze the perception information instructions for controlling operations of the vehicle generated by a second processor based on the perception information to determine whether there is a conflict with an instruction of the instructions for controlling the operations of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0150], [0223], [0286], [0308]; where the system (100) may provide driver assist functionality that monitors the vicinity around the vehicle (200) and aborts lane changes in the event that the lane change is deemed to be a risk of causing a collision (i.e. conflict with instructions), such as with another vehicle; and where the processing unit (110) may execute instructions associated with the velocity and acceleration module (406) to calculate a target speed for the vehicle or to take actions, such as determining if it is safe to make a lane change);
maneuvering the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0133], [0190]; where the processing unit (110) may initiate or activate an offset maneuver to bypass an object or initiate braking actions, and automatically take the determined action by controlling braking, acceleration, and/or steering of the vehicle) by
providing an instruction to the vehicle responsive to at least one of the conflict with the forecast or the conflict with the instruction (e.g. Paragraphs [0226], [0286], [0308], [0313]; where the system (100) may cause the vehicle (200) to take evasive action to avoid encroaching traffic, to include braking, changing lanes, or otherwise altering the course of the vehicle; and where instructions are provided that cause the processing unit to execute the instruction) ‘…’.
Clarke fails to disclose every feature of continuously monitoring, by the one or more computing devices of the vehicle, a heartbeat signal generated by a diagnostic device, wherein the heartbeat signal is configured to synchronize the one or more computing devices of the vehicle; and responsive to failing to receive the heartbeat signal over a predefined interval, ignoring the instruction and maneuvering the vehicle with overriding instructions.
However, Hayes, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for handling errors in an autonomous vehicle, where the system determines an error state of the autonomous vehicle, where the error state includes a failure to receive a driving decision and/or updated remediation sequence from the automation computing system (116), and may include a failure to receive a heartbeat message or other signal at a predefined interval or for a predefined duration; and when the error state has been reached, the system executes a remediation sequence, which may be overridden when one or more conditions are satisfied, which includes if the autonomous vehicle exists in the error state (e.g. Paragraphs [0053], [0055]-[0056], [0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the method for detecting and responding to traffic in the system of Clarke, with the feature of monitoring a heartbeat signal in the system of Hayes, in order to override a determined driving decision (see at least Paragraph [0058] of Hayes).
As per Claim 16, Clarke, in view of Hayes, teaches the features of Claim 15, and Clarke further discloses the features of wherein the perception information is generated by one or more sensors associated with the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0133], [0139]-[0142]; where the system may analyze image data, position data, map data, speed data, and/or data from sensors included with the vehicle to determine whether or not the vehicle should take a certain action).
As per Claim 17, Clarke, in view of Hayes, teaches the features of Claim 15, and Clarke further discloses the features of wherein the providing the instruction for causing the vehicle to execute the maneuver comprises:
Identifying at least one of a first level of criticality for the conflict with the forecast for the object or a second level of criticality for the conflict with the instruction for controlling the operation of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0338]-[0339], [0355]; where when the risk of collision rises above a predetermined level, the system (100) may cause a response, such as braking, and when the risk of collision is even higher (e.g., where the system (100) determines that a collision would be imminent without evasive action), the system may cause the vehicle to take an evasive action, such as maximum braking, change of direction, etc.; and where the system (100) may associate different reaction zones with different degrees of responsive actions, such as taking no action when the target vehicle is within a first threshold, taking medium action when the target vehicle is within a second threshold, and taking a more dramatic action when the target vehicle is within a third threshold (i.e. level of criticality)); and
providing, based on at least one of the first level of criticality or the second level of criticality, the instruction for causing the vehicle to execute the maneuver to at least one vehicle controller for the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0255], [0355]; where the system (100) may change the current velocity to the initial target velocity according to any particular braking profile (e.g., a braking profile calling for a high level of braking for the first two seconds, and a low level of braking for the subsequent three seconds) (i.e. a criticality level is determined); and where when the risk of collision rises above a predetermined level, the system (100) may cause a response, such as braking, and when the risk of collision is even higher (e.g., where the system (100) determines that a collision would be imminent without evasive action), the system may cause the vehicle to take an evasive action, such as maximum braking, change of direction, etc.).
As per Claim 18, Clarke, in view of Hayes, teaches the features of Claim 17, and Clarke further discloses the features of wherein the at least one vehicle controller for the vehicle is mapped to at least one of the first level of criticality or the second level of criticality (e.g. Paragraphs [0255], [0355]; where the system (100) may change the current velocity to the initial target velocity according to any particular braking profile (e.g., a braking profile calling for a high level of braking for the first two seconds, and a low level of braking for the subsequent three seconds) (i.e. a criticality level is determined); and where when the risk of collision rises above a predetermined level, the system (100) may cause a response, such as braking, and when the risk of collision is even higher (e.g., where the system (100) determines that a collision would be imminent without evasive action), the system may cause the vehicle to take an evasive action, such as maximum braking, change of direction, etc.).
As per Claim 19, Clarke, in view of Hayes, teaches the features of Claim 15, and Clarke further discloses the features of the operations further comprising:
providing an instruction to at least one vehicle controller for the vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0338]; where if the risk of collision is low, the system (100) may disregard movements by a target vehicle (200b), such that the primary vehicle may not respond to movements or actions of the target vehicle when there is not a risk of collision) to
ignore the instruction for causing the maneuver for the vehicle based on a determination that at least one of: the determined conflict with the instruction for controlling the operation of the vehicle is invalid or the determined conflict with the forecast for the object is invalid (e.g. Paragraphs [0155]; [0338]; where the processing unit (110) may filter the set of candidate objects to exclude certain candidates (e.g., irrelevant or less relevant objects); where if the risk of collision is low, the system (100) may disregard movements by a target vehicle (200b), such that the primary vehicle may not respond to movements or actions of the target vehicle when there is not a risk of collision (i.e. the forecast of a collision is invalid).
Claims 6-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke, in view of Gallo and Hayes, as applied to Claim 1, above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0324450 A1, to Lurie, et al (hereinafter referred to as Lurie; previously of record).
As per Claim 6, and similarly for Claim 13, Clarke, in view of Gallo and Hayes, teaches the features of Claims 1 and 8, respectively, but the combination of Clarke, in view of Gallo and Hayes fails to teach every feature of further comprising providing, by the one or more computing devices of the vehicle, to a third monitor configured to monitor an operational state of the one or more computing devices, an indication of the operational state, wherein based on the operational state the third monitor provides an instruction to at least one vehicle controller for the vehicle to at least one of: ignore the instruction for causing the vehicle to execute the maneuver or cause the vehicle to execute a different maneuver.
However, Lurie, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for receiving data from a computing system of a vehicle in order to determine appropriate vehicle actions, where the bus guardian tracks overall health of the autonomous vehicle (including various computer systems and vehicle components); and where the vehicle may be equipped for detecting and self-diagnosing the vehicle’s own state and condition; where the bus guardian may be a device attached to an actuator of the vehicle that selectively sends control signals/ commands to an associated vehicle component; and where the bus guardian (BG, 132), may determine that a component is faulty (provides a certificate outside its bounds), where the bounds may be based at least in part on properties of the control command, such as whether the control command was calculated using old sensor data, the value of the control command exceeds traction limits of the AV; etc., and the bus guardian (BG, 132) may disregard any messages from the high-performance computer (HPC, 110A) or the high-safety computer (HSC, 110B) or sensors that are not consistent with the expected bounds (e.g. Paragraphs [0114], [0117], [0132], [0146]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the method for detecting and responding to traffic in the system of Clarke, in view of Gallo and Hayes, with the feature of determining status of vehicle components in the system of Lurie, in order to determine when it is necessary to hand over vehicle control to a driver (see at least Paragraphs [0122] and [0132] of Lurie).
As per Claim 7, and similarly for Claim 14, Clarke, in view of Gallo and Hayes, teaches the features of Claims 1 and 8, respectively, but the combination of Clarke, in view of Gallo and Hayes, fails to teach every feature of wherein the providing the instruction for causing the vehicle to execute the maneuver comprises providing the instruction to a third monitor that monitors instructions for executing maneuvers, wherein based on an amount of time since at least one of the instruction for causing the vehicle to execute the maneuver or a different instruction for causing the vehicle to execute a different maneuver is received exceeding a threshold, the third monitor is configured to cause a selected maneuver for the vehicle.
However, Lurie, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for receiving data from a computing system of a vehicle in order to determine appropriate vehicle actions, where the micro control unit (MCU) may check a signature attached to a data packed to determine one or more of its validity, authenticity, or correctness, and may check a signature to determine if the packet was signed or still valid within a threshold time; and if the MCU determines that one or more data packets are untrustworthy, faulty, etc., then the MCU may send a command to change control of the vehicle and may make a decision as to what each vehicle actuator should or should not do, by determining an action for the vehicle independent of actions determined by the high-performance computer or a lower performance computer of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0043], [0085], [0122]-[0123]; Claim 6).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the method for detecting and responding to traffic in the system of Clarke, in view of Gallo and Hayes, with the feature of implementing a different vehicle action if a time threshold is exceeded for receiving an instruction, in the system of Lurie, in order to maintain vehicle operations and increase safety of the vehicle (see at least Paragraphs [0081] of Lurie).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke, in view of Hayes, as applied to Claim 15, above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0324450 A1, to Lurie, et al (hereinafter referred to as Lurie; previously of record).
As per Claim 20, Clarke, in view of Hayes, teaches the features of Claim 15, but the combination of Clarke, in view of Hayes, fails to teach every feature of further comprising providing, by the one or more computing devices of the vehicle, to a third monitor configured to monitor an operational state of the one or more computing devices, an indication of the operational state, wherein based on the operational state the third monitor provides an instruction to at least one vehicle controller for the vehicle to at least one of: ignore the instruction for causing the vehicle to execute the maneuver or cause the vehicle to execute a different maneuver.
However, Lurie, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for receiving data from a computing system of a vehicle in order to determine appropriate vehicle actions, where the bus guardian tracks overall health of the autonomous vehicle (including various computer systems and vehicle components); and where the vehicle may be equipped for detecting and self-diagnosing the vehicle’s own state and condition; where the bus guardian may be a device attached to an actuator of the vehicle that selectively sends control signals/ commands to an associated vehicle component; and where the bus guardian (BG, 132), may determine that a component is faulty (provides a certificate outside its bounds), where the bounds may be based at least in part on properties of the control command, such as whether the control command was calculated using old sensor data, the value of the control command exceeds traction limits of the AV; etc., and the bus guardian (BG, 132) may disregard any messages from the high-performance computer (HPC, 110A) or the high-safety computer (HSC, 110B) or sensors that are not consistent with the expected bounds (e.g. Paragraphs [0114], [0117], [0132], [0146]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the method for detecting and responding to traffic in the system of Clarke, in view of Hayes, with the feature of determining status of vehicle components in the system of Lurie, in order to determine when it is necessary to hand over vehicle control to a driver (see at least Paragraphs [0122] and [0132] of Lurie).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Haynes (U.S. 2019/0064815 A1), which teaches a method for prioritizing object prediction for autonomous vehicles.
King, et al (U.S. 2022/0055616 A1), which teaches a method for validating operation of a primary and secondary vehicle system to control the vehicle to avoid collisions.
Koopman, et al (U.S. 2019/0056735 A1), which teaches a safety architecture for an autonomous vehicle, based on determining validity of data acquired by first and second units.
Sandberg, et al (U.S. 2025/0196888 A1), which teaches a method for validating a trajectory of an autonomous vehicle.
Zhu, et al (U.S. 9,911,030 B1), which teaches a method for evaluating the perception system of an autonomous vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (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 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.
/MERRITT LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
