DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on May 13, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed on May 13, 2026. Claims 1 and 3-21 are currently pending, with Claims 1, 8, and 15 being amended, Claim 2 being cancelled, and Claim 21 being newly added.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, filed May 13, 2026, the Examiner withdraws the previous 25 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed May 13, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-20 under Clarke, in view of Lurie, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection of Claims 1 and 3-21 is made in view of Lepird, Margosian, Clarke, Lurie, and Gallo.
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, 3-4, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0202470 A1, to Lepird, et al (hereinafter referred to as Lepird; newly of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0124026 A1, to Margosian, et al (hereinafter referred to as Margosian; newly of record).
As per Claim 1, Lepird discloses the features of a method (e.g. Paragraph [0003]; where a method for enabling an autonomous vehicle to deal with certain road conditions is provided), comprising:
evaluating, by one or more computing devices of a vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0020], [0031]; where the on-board computing device (220) may analyze data captured by the sensors and control operations of the vehicle in response),
an output of a first monitor 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 to determine whether there is a conflict with a forecast for an object of the objects in the proximity (e.g. Paragraphs [0015], [0037], [0041], [0044], [0052]; where the vehicle on-board computing device (220) may be implemented with modules that are executed by one or more processors of the on-board computing device; where the system forecasts positions of objects and computes error values indicating whether forecasted predications are reliable, based on comparing an observed position of the object against a predicted trajectory for the object (i.e., conflicts with forecasts)), 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 [0015], [0044], [0052], [0074]; where the system forecasts positions of objects and computes error values indicating whether forecasted predications are reliable, based on comparing an observed position of the object against a predicted trajectory for the object);
evaluating, by the one or more computing devices of the vehicle, an output of a second monitor 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 [0039], [0041], [0058], [0074]; where the vehicle on-board computing device (220) may be implemented with modules that are executed by one or more processors of the on-board computing device; and where the on-board computing system can also assess the risk of a collision between a detect object and the autonomous vehicle. and determine if the risk exceeds a threshold value; and when the system is determining the risk factor, the system can determine the object poses a high risk when it starts reversing and changing the direction of travel (i.e., conflicts with instructions)); and
maneuvering 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 [0062], [0072]; where the system can determine whether to perform a maneuver for the autonomous vehicle, based on the risk factor value, to cause the vehicle to maintains a maximum lateral or longitudinal distance from the object, to slow down, or slow down at a rapid rate); ‘…’.
Lepird 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, Margosian, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an asymmetrical autonomous vehicle computing system, where the primary AVS computer system and backup AVS computer system continuously share a heartbeat signal, to indicate normal operation or synchronize other parts of a computer system, and if the endpoint does not receive a heartbeat for a time, the system that should have sent the heartbeat is assumed to have failed; and when a discrepancy is shown in data or synchronization, or if communications between the primary and backup AVS systems are interrupted or terminated, the backup AVS system will take over vehicle control using only the sensor devices associated with the backup AVS system, and may require a human drier to take over driving control of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0069], [0071], [0083], [0094], [0098]).
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 vehicle handling system of Lepird, with the feature of monitoring a heartbeat in the system of Margosian, in order to provide high availability and fault tolerance for autonomous operations (see at least Paragraph [0070] of Margosian).
As per Claim 15, Lepird discloses the features of non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a computing system for a vehicle, cause the computing system to perform operations (e.g. Paragraph [0069]; where the modules implementing the functions of the system may be implemented as instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium to be executed by one or more computing units, such as a processor, a special purpose computer, an integrated circuit, etc.) comprising:
evaluating an output of a first monitor 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 to determine whether there is a conflict with a forecast for an object of the objects in the proximity (e.g. Paragraphs [0015], [0037], [0041], [0044], [0052]; where the vehicle on-board computing device (220) may be implemented with modules that are executed by one or more processors of the on-board computing device; where the system forecasts positions of objects and computes error values indicating whether forecasted predications are reliable, based on comparing an observed position of the object against a predicted trajectory for the object (i.e., conflicts with forecasts)),
evaluating an output of a second monitor 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 [0039], [0041], [0058], [0074]; where the vehicle on-board computing device (220) may be implemented with modules that are executed by one or more processors of the on-board computing device; and where the on-board computing system can also assess the risk of a collision between a detect object and the autonomous vehicle. and determine if the risk exceeds a threshold value; and when the system is determining the risk factor, the system can determine the object poses a high risk when it starts reversing and changing the direction of travel (i.e., conflicts with instructions));
maneuvering 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 [0062], [0072]; where the system can determine whether to perform a maneuver for the autonomous vehicle, based on the risk factor value, to cause the vehicle to maintains a maximum lateral or longitudinal distance from the object, to slow down, or slow down at a rapid rate); ‘…’.
Lepird fails to disclose every feature of continuously monitoring a heartbeat signal generated by a diagnostic device, wherein the heartbeat signal is configured to synchronize the first processor and the second processor; and responsive to failing to receive the heartbeat signal over a predefined interval, ignoring the instruction and maneuvering the vehicle with overriding instructions.
However, Margosian, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an asymmetrical autonomous vehicle computing system, where the primary AVS computer system and backup AVS computer system continuously share a heartbeat signal, to indicate normal operation or synchronize other parts of a computer system, and if the endpoint does not receive a heartbeat for a time, the system that should have sent the heartbeat is assumed to have failed; and when a discrepancy is shown in data or synchronization, or if communications between the primary and backup AVS systems are interrupted or terminated, the backup AVS system will take over vehicle control using only the sensor devices associated with the backup AVS system, and may require a human drier to take over driving control of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0069], [0071], [0083], [0094], [0098]).
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 vehicle handling system of Lepird, with the feature of monitoring a heartbeat in the system of Margosian, in order to provide high availability and fault tolerance for autonomous operations (see at least Paragraph [0070] of Margosian).
As per Claim 3, and similarly for Claim 17, Lepird, in view of Margosian, teaches the features of Claims 1 and 15, respectively, and Lepird 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 [0057]-[0059]; where the system generates the error value and the risk factor, which may be a value between 0.0 to 1.0, which can represent a level of the risk the system believes the object poses to the AV (102a), and may be further incremented based on an increased risk to the AV (102a), for example, the risk factor may have a value of 0.0 when there is no risk of the AV (102a) colliding with an object if the AV continues on its trajectory, and have a value of 1.0 when there is a certain risk of collision); 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. Paragraph [0039], [0062]-[0063]; where the on-board computing device (220) may assess the risk of collision between the detected object and the AV (102a), and the vehicle may determine whether the collision may be avoided if the AV (102a) follows a defined vehicle trajectory and/or implements one or more dynamically generated emergency maneuvers performed in a pre-defined time period).
As per Claim 4, and similarly for Claim 18, Lepird, in view of Margosian, teaches the features of Claims 3 and 17, respectively, and Lepird 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. Paragraph [0062]-[0063]; where, based on the risk factor value, the system can determine whether to perform a maneuver for the AV (102a), and for any non-zero risk factor value, the system can generate a control signal (332) to induce the control systems of the AV (102a) to initiate a maneuver; and if the risk facto value is high, the control signal (332) can instruct the AV (102a) to maneuver so that is has a maximum longitudinal distance or lateral distance from the object, or to maneuver the AV (102a) to slow down rapidly at a predetermined rate, and if the risk factor value is low, the control signal (332) can instruct the AV (102a) to maneuver a minimal longitudinal distance or later distance from the object, or maneuver the AV (102a) to slow down at a predetermined rate less rapidly than if there was a higher risk to the AV (102a)).
As per Claim 16, Lepird discloses the features of Claim 15, and Lepird further discloses the features of wherein the perception information is generated by one or more sensors associated with the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0020]-[0021], [0035]; where the AV (102a) may include a sensor system (111), which may be used to determine perception information of the surrounding environment of the AV (102a)).
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepird, in view of Margosian, as applied to Claims 1 and 15, above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0153735 A1, to Clarke, et al (hereinafter referred to as Clarke; previously of record).
As per Claim 5, and similarly for Claim 19, Lepird, in view of Margosian, teaches the features of Claims 1 and 15, respectively, but the combination of Lepird, in view of Margosian, fails to teach every feature 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 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.
However, Clarke, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for detecting and responding to traffic encroaching on a vehicle, 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) (e.g. Paragraphs [0155], [0338]).
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 vehicle handling system of Lepird, in view of Margosian, with the feature of determining a valid instruction in the system of Clarke, in order to determine if control needs to be delegated to the driver or if responsive maneuvers need to be performed (see at least Paragraphs [0166], [0338] of Clarke).
Claims 6-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepird, in view of Margosian, as applied to Claims 1 and 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 6, and similarly for Claim 20, Lepird, in view of Margosian, teaches the features of Claims 1 and 15, respectively, but the combination of Lepird, in view of Margosian, 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 vehicle handling system of Lepird, in view of Margosian, 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], [0132] of Lurie).
As per Claim 7, Lepird, in view of Margosian, teaches the features of Claim 1, but the combination of Lepird, in view of Margosian, 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 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 vehicle handling system of Lepird, in view of Margosian, 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 Paragraph [0081] of Lurie).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0202470 A1, to Lepird, et al (hereinafter referred to as Lepird; newly of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0153262 A1, to Gallo, et al (hereinafter referred to as Gallo; newly of record).
As per Claim 8, Lepird discloses the features of a computing system for a vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0020], [0031]; where the on-board computing device (220) may analyze data captured by the sensors and control operations of the vehicle in response), comprising:
a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform operations (e.g. Paragraph [0069]; where the modules implementing the functions of the system may be implemented as instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium to be executed by one or more computing units, such as a processor, a special purpose computer, an integrated circuit, etc.) comprising:
evaluating an output of a first monitor 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 to determine whether there is a conflict with a forecast for an object of the objects in the proximity (e.g. Paragraphs [0015], [0037], [0041], [0044], [0052]; where the vehicle on-board computing device (220) may be implemented with modules that are executed by one or more processors of the on-board computing device; where the system forecasts positions of objects and computes error values indicating whether forecasted predications are reliable, based on comparing an observed position of the object against a predicted trajectory for the object (i.e., conflicts with forecasts)), 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 [0015], [0044], [0052], [0074]; where the system forecasts positions of objects and computes error values indicating whether forecasted predications are reliable, based on comparing an observed position of the object against a predicted trajectory for the object);
evaluating an output of a second monitor 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 [0039], [0041], [0058], [0074]; where the vehicle on-board computing device (220) may be implemented with modules that are executed by one or more processors of the on-board computing device; and where the on-board computing system can also assess the risk of a collision between a detect object and the autonomous vehicle. and determine if the risk exceeds a threshold value; and when the system is determining the risk factor, the system can determine the object poses a high risk when it starts reversing and changing the direction of travel (i.e., conflicts with instructions)); ‘…’
maneuvering 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 [0062], [0072]; where the system can determine whether to perform a maneuver for the autonomous vehicle, based on the risk factor value, to cause the vehicle to maintains a maximum lateral or longitudinal distance from the object, to slow down, or slow down at a rapid rate).
Lepird fails to disclose every feature of 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, Gallo, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for detecting objects and performing collision avoidance, where the vehicle decides, in the case of conflicting results, whether to heed the result from the primary or secondary computer, and the vehicle may detect faults in perception and dynamic driving tasks, and a supervisory control unit determines how to reconcile the conflict (e.g. Paragraphs [0233]-[0234]).
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 vehicle handling system of Lepird, with the feature of determining if two instructions are conflicting in the system of Gallo, in order to perform safe operation of the vehicle (see at least Paragraph [0233] of Gallo).
As per Claim 9, Lepird, in view of Gallo, teaches the features of Claim 8, and Lepird further discloses the features of wherein the perception information is generated by one or more sensors associated with the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0020]-[0021], [0035]; where the AV (102a) may include a sensor system (111), which may be used to determine perception information of the surrounding environment of the AV (102a)).
As per Claim 10, Lepird, in view of Gallo, teaches the features of Claim 8, and Lepird 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 [0057]-[0059]; where the system generates the error value and the risk factor, which may be a value between 0.0 to 1.0, which can represent a level of the risk the system believes the object poses to the AV (102a), and may be further incremented based on an increased risk to the AV (102a), for example, the risk factor may have a value of 0.0 when there is no risk of the AV (102a) colliding with an object if the AV continues on its trajectory, and have a value of 1.0 when there is a certain risk of collision); 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. Paragraph [0039], [0062]-[0063]; where the on-board computing device (220) may assess the risk of collision between the detected object and the AV (102a), and the vehicle may determine whether the collision may be avoided if the AV (102a) follows a defined vehicle trajectory and/or implements one or more dynamically generated emergency maneuvers performed in a pre-defined time period).
As per Claim 11, Lepird, in view of Gallo, teaches the features of Claim 10, and Lepird 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. Paragraph [0062]-[0063]; where, based on the risk factor value, the system can determine whether to perform a maneuver for the AV (102a), and for any non-zero risk factor value, the system can generate a control signal (332) to induce the control systems of the AV (102a) to initiate a maneuver; and if the risk facto value is high, the control signal (332) can instruct the AV (102a) to maneuver so that is has a maximum longitudinal distance or lateral distance from the object, or to maneuver the AV (102a) to slow down rapidly at a predetermined rate, and if the risk factor value is low, the control signal (332) can instruct the AV (102a) to maneuver a minimal longitudinal distance or later distance from the object, or maneuver the AV (102a) to slow down at a predetermined rate less rapidly than if there was a higher risk to the AV (102a)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepird, in view of Gallo, as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0153735 A1, to Clarke, et al (hereinafter referred to as Clarke; previously of record).
As per Claim 12, Lepird, in view of Gallo, teaches the features of Claim 8, but the combination of Lepird, in view of Gallo, fails to teach every feature 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 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.
However, Clarke, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for detecting and responding to traffic encroaching on a vehicle, 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) (e.g. Paragraphs [0155], [0338]).
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 vehicle handling system of Lepird, in view of Gallo, with the feature of determining a valid instruction in the system of Clarke, in order to determine if control needs to be delegated to the driver or if responsive maneuvers need to be performed (see at least Paragraphs [0166], [0338] of Clarke).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepird, in view of Gallo, as applied to Claim 8 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 13, Lepird, in view of Gallo, teaches the features of Claims 8, but the combination of Lepird, in view of Gallo, fails to teach every feature of further comprising providing to a third monitor configured to monitor an operational state of the system, 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 vehicle handling system of Lepird, in view of Gallo, 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], [0132] of Lurie).
As per Claim 14, Lepird, in view of Gallo, teaches the features of Claim 8, but the combination of Lepird, in view of Gallo, 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 vehicle handling system of Lepird, in view of Gallo, 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 Paragraph [0081] of Lurie).
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepird, in view of Margosian, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0153262 A1, to Gallo, et al (hereinafter referred to as Gallo; newly of record).
As per Claim 21, Lepird, in view of Margosian, teaches the features of Claim 1, but the combination of Lepird, in view of Margosian, fails to teach 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 incompatible with the first maneuver.
However, Gallo, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for detecting objects and performing collision avoidance, where the vehicle decides, in the case of conflicting results, whether to heed the result from the primary or secondary computer, and the vehicle may detect faults in perception and dynamic driving tasks, and a supervisory control unit determines how to reconcile the conflict (e.g. Paragraphs [0233]-[0234]).
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 vehicle handling system of Lepird, in view of Margosian, with the feature of determining if two instructions are conflicting in the system of Gallo, in order to perform safe operation of the vehicle (see at least Paragraph [0233] of Gallo).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Konrardy, et al (U.S. 2020/0317216 A1), which teaches a method for configuring an autonomous vehicle in the case of conflicting instructions.
Savtchenko, et al (U.S. 2022/0266873 A1), which teaches a method for determining intentions of an actor perceived by 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
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights