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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Dependent claim 21 is objected to but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to the applicant’s arguments
The amendments are entered. A new search and a new ground of rejection is made. The applicant’s arguments are now moot.
PNG
media_image1.png
840
1420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Yousef teaches “a first controller...installed in a vehicle...a second controller installed in a vehicle... (see paragraph 107 where the vehicle can include processors 202, 204, and 206)
and to performed a minimum risk maneuver MRM control...and a third controller installed in a vehicle(see paragraph 107 where the vehicle can include processors 202, 204, and 206)....and perform an MRM for reducing a speed of the vehicle and stopping a vehicle”. (see paragraph 183 and 193-197 where the processor can fuse the radar and lidar and provide a safe stopping and in paragraph 199 in the event of the failure to vehicle can have the vehicle operator to take over)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of HERBACH with the teachings of YOUSUF since YOUSUF teaches that 1. A primary processor 202 can be in a fault and 2. The second processor can take over operation of the vehicle 206 while the first processor is being reset and fixed. If both 202 and 206 are in fault and in failure then a braking processor and steering processor can be active to provide a “chauffeur stopping mode” and pull over safely. See paragraph 203.
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 and 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent No.: 8,849,494 B1 to Herbach which was filed on 3-15-13 (hereinafter “Herbach”) which is prior to the effective date and assigned to Waymo™ and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2018/0370540 A1 to YOUSUF et al. assigned to NVIDIA™ that was filed in 2018.
PNG
media_image2.png
697
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, and claim 11 and 16, Herbach discloses “1. A vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a first controller configured to control one or more safety features of a vehicle; (see FIG. 17 where there is a remote server 520 that can monitor the vehicle and is a processor and see FIG. 10, where the av may be processing the data incorrectly and may become stuck and the remote operator cancels the information and intervenes in block 1030; see col. 4, lines 37 to 40 where the at least one high-level, polygonal or polyhedral representation of an object that obstructs the first trajectory or point cloud representation of the object in the point cloud is ignored and cancelled so the vehicle can drive with the new trajectory and ignore the old incorrect trajectory; see col. 11, line 35).
a second controller configured to perform primary control of autonomous driving of the vehicle; and (See FIG. 16 where the control system includes a driving and steering controller unit 1644 and see FIG. 15a that shows a touchscreen 1500 where a new proposed trajectory 1550 in FIG. 15b can be made for the vehicle 1530 to avoid the object 1542 and FIG. 15c where the speed 1562 may also be altered; see FIG. 19A, block 1901; see Col. 22, lines 28 to 67; see Col. 24, lines 1-65)”. ; (see col. 6, lines 18 to 39) (see LIDAR unit 1626 in FIG. 16 and camera 1628 and obstacle detector 1630-1634 where the vehicle approaches the items and detects the items) (see FIG. 10, where the av may be processing the data incorrectly and may become stuck and the remote operator cancels the information and intervenes in block 1030; see col. 4, lines 37 to 40 where the at least one high-level, polygonal or polyhedral representation of an object that obstructs the first trajectory or point cloud representation of the object in the point cloud is ignored and cancelled so the vehicle can drive with the new trajectory and ignore the old incorrect trajectory; see col. 11, line 35).
PNG
media_image3.png
844
703
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
840
642
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
942
726
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a third controller configured to perform secondary control of the autonomous driving of the vehicle, (see FIG. 10 where the vehicle cannot process the object and has become stuck and then a second controller at the assistance center 520 has superior processing power or a human expert and can provide a new trajectory around the object 1060 to avoid the accident)
PNG
media_image6.png
702
676
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein the first controller is further configured to:
determine whether the second controller or the third controller fails during the autonomous driving of the vehicle, and (see FIG. 10 where the av is in a failure mode and cannot process the surroundings anymore and provides a help signal 1022 and then the server 520 via 1024 connects to the av via signal 1024) (see FIG. 4, blocks 410-440)
based on determining that the second controller or the third controller has failed, perform an autonomous driving function of the vehicle. (see block 520 where the assistance center 520 communicates with all of the avs 1010 and exchanges data and determines if the vehicle is 1. A driverless vehicle and 2. If the vehicle is stuck and is working incorrectly);…. (see LIDAR, RADAR and camera and GPS, and IMU sensors in FIG. 15), (see block 520 where the assistance center 520 communicates with all of the avs 1010 and exchanges data and determines if the vehicle is 1. A driverless vehicle and 2. If the vehicle is stuck and is working incorrectly; see col. 29, line 10-13 where the av 1600 is controlled to a controlled stop to avoid a trajectory, or alternatively to a new proposed trajectory and FIG. 10, where the assistance center 520 may control the autonomous vehicle that is stuck to the new trajectory 1090 and to override the incorrect action in av 1010; see col. 16, lines 15 to 44; see col. 25, lines 45 to 51 where the new speed may be provided by the assistance center). “(see block 520 where the assistance center 520 communicates with all of the avs 1010 and exchanges data and determines if the vehicle is 1. A driverless vehicle and 2. If the vehicle is stuck and is working incorrectly; see col. 29, line 10-13 where the av 1600 is controlled to a controlled stop to avoid a trajectory, or alternatively to a new proposed trajectory and FIG. 10, where the assistance center 520 may control the autonomous vehicle that is stuck to the new trajectory 1090 and to override the incorrect action in av 1010; see col. 16, lines 15 to 44; see col. 25, lines 45 to 51 where the new speed may be provided by the assistance center).
PNG
media_image1.png
840
1420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The primary reference is silent but YOUSUF teaches “...wherein after the vehicle control apparatus requests transfer of control authority to a user during autonomous driving of the vehicle, based on a failure of the user to take over control authority from the vehicle control apparatus, (see blocks 304 where the processor can make rationality checks and in block 316 consistency checks on the path planning and see paragraph 176 where the processor faults in multiple systems are provided and then the user is to take control of the autonomous vehicle and then if the user fails to take control then the autonomous vehicle must conclude the trip safely and as fast as possible)
the vehicle control apparatus is configured to: perform a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) for reducing a speed of the vehicle and stopping the vehicle, and based on a failure of the second controller occurring during performance of the MRM, continue the MRM using the first controller”. (see paragraph 183 where the processor 202 and processor 206 are provided and a failure of the processor 202 allows the processor 206 to take over and processor 206 takes full control while the processor 2020 is a power cycling and a hard reset; and a driver is notified. See also paragraph 24 where the processor 202 and 206 are both in fault and then the autonomous mode is to pull over to the side of the road).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of HERBACH with the teachings of YOUSUF since YOUSUF teaches that 1. A primary processor 202 can be in a fault and 2. The second processor can take over operation of the vehicle 206 while the first processor is being reset and fixed. If both 202 and 206 are in fault and in failure then a braking processor and steering processor can be active to provide a “chauffeur stopping mode” and pull over safely. See paragraph 203.
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Yousef teaches “a first controller...installed in a vehicle...a second controller installed in a vehicle... (see paragraph 107 where the vehicle can include processors 202, 204, and 206)
and to performed a minimum risk maneuver MRM control...and a third controller installed in a vehicle(see paragraph 107 where the vehicle can include processors 202, 204, and 206)....and perform an MRM for reducing a speed of the vehicle and stopping a vehicle”. (see paragraph 183 and 193-197 where the processor can fuse the radar and lidar and provide a safe stopping and in paragraph 199 in the event of the failure to vehicle can have the vehicle operator to take over)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of HERBACH with the teachings of YOUSUF since YOUSUF teaches that 1. A primary processor 202 can be in a fault and 2. The second processor can take over operation of the vehicle 206 while the first processor is being reset and fixed. If both 202 and 206 are in fault and in failure then a braking processor and steering processor can be active to provide a “chauffeur stopping mode” and pull over safely. See paragraph 203.
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 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent No.: 8,849,494 B1 to Herbach which was filed on 3-15-13 (hereinafter “Herbach”) which is prior to the effective date and assigned to Waymo™ and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2003/0112746 A1 to Schaller et al. that was filed in 2001 (hereinafter “Schaller”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2018/0370540 A1 to YOUSUF et al. assigned to NVIDIA™ that was filed in 2018 and in view of German Patent Pub. No.: DE102019115043B4 to Chim that was filed in 2018 (hereinafter “Chim”).
In regard to claim 2 and 17, Herbach is silent but Scahller teaches “..2. The vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first controller is a chassis sub controller. (see paragraph 99-118 where a sub-controller can detect an error in the controller )”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of HERBACH with the teachings of SCAHELLER with a reasonable expectation of success since SHAHELLER teaches that a controller can have a sub-controller that can detect a failure and provide a switching with an internal circuit that provides an improved monitoring. See paragraph 99-118.
The primary reference is silent but Chim teaches “...wherein the first controller is further configured to determine a failure state of at least one of the second controller or the third controller by determining disconnection of wired communication with the at least one of the second controller or the third controller”. (see abstract where a vehicle system module is detected as being not hard wired anymore when a heartbeat signal is not provided)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of HERBACH with the teachings of CHIM with a reasonable expectation of success since CHIM teaches that a system can provide a beacon signal to determine if the controllers are still hard wired and if they do not receive the heart beat signal the processor can infer that the disconnection event has occurred. The telematics unit can take a note of the position to determine if the vehicle is stolen. See claims 1-10.
Claims 3-9 and 14-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent No.: 8,849,494 B1 to Herbach which was filed on 3-15-13 (hereinafter “Herbach”) which is prior to the effective date and assigned to Waymo™ and Yousuf.
In regard to claim 3, and 18, Herbach discloses “...3. The vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, . (See Col. 16, lines 1-45)
Claim 3 and 12 are amended to recite and Herbach discloses “...wherein the first controller is equipped in the vehicle to control at least one device of the vehicle”.
PNG
media_image7.png
936
808
media_image7.png
Greyscale
FIG. 16 of Herbach shows the controllers of the control system 1606 that has a stuck condition controller 1640 and a trajectory validation controller 1642 and a driving unit controller 1644 and a throttle controller 1646 and a brake controller 1648 and a sensor fusion, computer vision, navigation and obstacle avoidance controllers 1650-1656,
The remote system also has a controller. This is the first controller in FIG. 17 that can detect if a vehicle is stuck and then take control or resolve the trajectory to prevent a crash into an object since the vehicle cannot resolve the object in time.
The second controller that can drive the vehicle is the computer vision system and the steering unit controllers, 1652 and 1644.
PNG
media_image8.png
956
774
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The third controller is from the remote system that can resolve the trajectory and then provide the new trajectory to the av obstacle avoidance 1636 that can move around the object. The vehicle can have a third controller that can detect that the vehicle is stuck 1640 and then ask for a resolved trajectory to controller 1656 and then the steering controller can use the new trajectory 1644 which is validated by a controller 1642.
See FIG. 15b where the vehicle is going to hit object but a new trajectory 1550 is provided to the 1636 to move around the object.
The autonomous vehicle may include one or more processors and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous vehicle to perform functions. The functions may include detecting a condition in which the autonomous vehicle is impeded from navigating according to a first trajectory. The functions may also include sending an assistance signal, from the autonomous vehicle to an assistance center, that the autonomous vehicle seeks assistance navigating according to the first trajectory. The assistance signal may include sensor information of the autonomous vehicle indicating low-level sensor strike input and high-level, polygonal or polyhedral representations of objects in the vicinity of the autonomous vehicle. The functions may also include receiving a response to the assistance signal. The response may include a representation of a second trajectory that could be based on the first trajectory. The second trajectory may ignore the presence of at least part of one high-level, polygonal or polyhedral representation of an object that obstructs the first trajectory.)
PNG
media_image1.png
840
1420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 and 12 and 18 recite and the primary reference is silent but YOUSUF teaches “...and wherein the second controller and the third controller are equipped in a vehicle for autonomous driving control , (see paragraph 53-54 and blocks 304 where the processor can make rationality checks and in block 316 consistency checks on the path planning and see paragraph 176 where the processor faults in multiple systems are provided and then the user is to take control of the autonomous vehicle and then if the user fails to take control then the autonomous vehicle must conclude the trip safely and as fast as possible) (see paragraph 183 where the processor 202 and processor 206 are provided and a failure of the processor 202 allows the processor 206 to take over and processor 206 takes full control while the processor 2020 is a power cycling and a hard reset; and a driver is notified. See also paragraph 24 where the processor 202 and 206 are both in fault and then the autonomous mode is to pull over to the side of the road).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of HERBACH with the teachings of YOUSUF since YOUSUF teaches that 1. A primary processor 202 can be in a fault and 2. The second processor can take over operation of the vehicle 206 while the first processor is being reset and fixed. If both 202 and 206 are in fault and in failure then a braking processor and steering processor can be active to provide a “chauffeur stopping mode” and pull over safely. See paragraph 203.
In regard to claim 4 and 19, Herbach discloses “..4. The vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first
controller is further configured to, based on the second controller failing and further based on a command from the third controller, perform the MRM. (see FIG. 10 where the av is in a failure mode and cannot process the surroundings anymore and provides a help signal 1022 and then the server 520 via 1024 connects to the av via signal 1024) (see FIG. 4, blocks 410-440) (see block 520 where the assistance center 520 communicates with all of the avs 1010 and exchanges data and determines if the vehicle is 1. A driverless vehicle and 2. If the vehicle is stuck and is working incorrectly);…. (see LIDAR, RADAR and camera and GPS, and IMU sensors in FIG. 15), (see block 520 where the assistance center 520 communicates with all of the avs 1010 and exchanges data and determines if the vehicle is 1. A driverless vehicle and 2. If the vehicle is stuck and is working incorrectly; see col. 29, line 10-13 where the av 1600 is controlled to a controlled stop to avoid a trajectory, or alternatively to a new proposed trajectory and FIG. 10, where the assistance center 520 may control the autonomous vehicle that is stuck to the new trajectory 1090 and to override the incorrect action in av 1010; see col. 16, lines 15 to 44; see col. 25, lines 45 to 51 where the new speed may be provided by the assistance center). “(see block 520 where the assistance center 520 communicates with all of the avs 1010 and exchanges data and determines if the vehicle is 1. A driverless vehicle and 2. If the vehicle is stuck and is working incorrectly; see col. 29, line 10-13 where the av 1600 is controlled to a controlled stop to avoid a trajectory, or alternatively to a new proposed trajectory and FIG. 10, where the assistance center 520 may control the autonomous vehicle that is stuck to the new trajectory 1090 and to override the incorrect action in av 1010; see col. 16, lines 15 to 44; see col. 25, lines 45 to 51 where the new speed may be provided by the assistance center).
In regard to claim 5 and 14, Herbach discloses “...5. The vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first
5 controller is further configured to, based on the second controller and the third controller failing, perform the MRM without receiving any vehicle control commands from the second controller or the third controller. (see FIG. 10 where the av is in a failure mode and cannot process the surroundings anymore and provides a help signal 1022 and then the server 520 via 1024 connects to the av via signal 1024) (see FIG. 4, blocks 410-440) (see block 520 where the assistance center 520 communicates with all of the avs 1010 and exchanges data and determines if the vehicle is 1. A driverless vehicle and 2. If the vehicle is stuck and is working incorrectly);…. (see LIDAR, RADAR and camera and GPS, and IMU sensors in FIG. 15), (see block 520 where the assistance center 520 communicates with all of the avs 1010 and exchanges data and determines if the vehicle is 1. A driverless vehicle and 2. If the vehicle is stuck and is working incorrectly; see col. 29, line 10-13 where the av 1600 is controlled to a controlled stop to avoid a trajectory, or alternatively to a new proposed trajectory and FIG. 10, where the assistance center 520 may control the autonomous vehicle that is stuck to the new trajectory 1090 and to override the incorrect action in av 1010; see col. 16, lines 15 to 44; see col. 25, lines 45 to 51 where the new speed may be provided by the assistance center). “(see block 520 where the assistance center 520 communicates with all of the avs 1010 and exchanges data and determines if the vehicle is 1. A driverless vehicle and 2. If the vehicle is stuck and is working incorrectly; see col. 29, line 10-13 where the av 1600 is controlled to a controlled stop to avoid a trajectory, or alternatively to a new proposed trajectory and FIG. 10, where the assistance center 520 may control the autonomous vehicle that is stuck to the new trajectory 1090 and to override the incorrect action in av 1010; see col. 16, lines 15 to 44; see col. 25, lines 45 to 51 where the new speed may be provided by the assistance center).
PNG
media_image9.png
810
640
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Herbach discloses “...6. The vehicle control apparatus of claim 5, wherein the vehicle
control commands include at least one of a longitudinal control command or a lateral control command”. (see FIG. 9 where the vehicle can move along trajectory 936 which is a bad trajectory and instead can move along new trajectory 946 and move to the shoulder and away from the pedestrians in the road)
PNG
media_image10.png
952
816
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 7 and 15, Herbach discloses “...7. The vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second controller includes an electronic control unit (ECU), and
wherein the third controller includes a front camera”. (See FIG. 16 where the device has a camera 1628 and a lidar sensor; see col. 28, lines 21-65)
Herbach discloses “...8. The vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one of the second controller or the third controller is configured to transmit failure state information to the first controller based on a determination of a failure state of the
at least one of the second controller or the third controller”. (see FIG. 10 where the av is in a failure mode and cannot process the surroundings anymore and provides a help signal 1022 and then the server 520 via 1024 connects to the av via signal 1024) (see FIG. 4, blocks 410-440) (see block 520 where the assistance center 520 communicates with all of the avs 1010 and exchanges data and determines if the vehicle is 1. A driverless vehicle and 2. If the vehicle is stuck and is working incorrectly);…. (see LIDAR, RADAR and camera and GPS, and IMU sensors in FIG. 15), (see block 520 where the assistance center 520 communicates with all of the avs 1010 and exchanges data and determines if the vehicle is 1. A driverless vehicle and 2. If the vehicle is stuck and is working incorrectly; see col. 29, line 10-13 where the av 1600 is controlled to a controlled stop to avoid a trajectory, or alternatively to a new proposed trajectory and FIG. 10, where the assistance center 520 may control the autonomous vehicle that is stuck to the new trajectory 1090 and to override the incorrect action in av 1010; see col. 16, lines 15 to 44; see col. 25, lines 45 to 51 where the new speed may be provided by the assistance center). “(see block 520 where the assistance center 520 communicates with all of the avs 1010 and exchanges data and determines if the vehicle is 1. A driverless vehicle and 2. If the vehicle is stuck and is working incorrectly; see col. 29, line 10-13 where the av 1600 is controlled to a controlled stop to avoid a trajectory, or alternatively to a new proposed trajectory and FIG. 10, where the assistance center 520 may control the autonomous vehicle that is stuck to the new trajectory 1090 and to override the incorrect action in av 1010; see col. 16, lines 15 to 44; see col. 25, lines 45 to 51 where the new speed may be provided by the assistance center).
Herbach discloses “..9. The vehicle control apparatus of claim 8, wherein the first
controller is further configured to determine the failure state of the at least one of
the second controller or the third controller based on the failure state information received from the at least one of the second controller or the third controller”. (see col. 29, lines 1-57 where the stuck detector processor can detect that the obstacle avoidance detector unit is not working any more and then request help from the remove server processor)”.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent No.: 8,849,494 B1 to Herbach which was filed on 3-15-13 (hereinafter “Herbach”) which is prior to the effective date and assigned to Waymo™ and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190020985A1 to Dai et al. that was filed in 2011 (hereinafter “Dai”) assigned to CISCO™ and Yousuf.
In regard to claim 10 and 20, Dai teaches “...10. The vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first 5 controller is further configured to determine a failure state of at least one of the second controller or the third controller by determining disconnection of wired communication with the at least one of the second controller or the third controller”. (see paragraph 110 when the interfaces are detected as disconnected then the mobility can be changed to a redundant system);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of HERBACH with the teachings of DAI with a reasonable expectation of success since DAI teaches that a controller can have a detection of a “wired disconnection” and then a routing can be provided to improve and resolve a disruption. This can detect a failure and provide a migration to a different computer interface that provides an improved redundancy. See paragraph 110-112.
Claims 1 and 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.: 20230339480 A1 to Chen and in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.: US 2021 0387643 A1 to Hari (hereinafter “HARI”) and Yousuf.
Claims 1, 11, 16 are amended to recite and Yousef teaches “a first controller...installed in a vehicle...a second controller installed in a vehicle... (see paragraph 107 where the vehicle can include processors 202, 204, and 206)
and to performed a minimum risk maneuver MRM control...and a third controller installed in a vehicle(see paragraph 107 where the vehicle can include processors 202, 204, and 206)....and perform an MRM for reducing a speed of the vehicle and stopping a vehicle”. (see paragraph 183 and 193-197 where the processor can fuse the radar and lidar and provide a safe stopping and in paragraph 199 in the event of the failure to vehicle can have the vehicle operator to take over)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of CHEN with the teachings of YOUSUF since YOUSUF teaches that 1. A primary processor 202 can be in a fault and 2. The second processor can take over operation of the vehicle 206 while the first processor is being reset and fixed. If both 202 and 206 are in fault and in failure then a braking processor and steering processor can be active to provide a “chauffeur stopping mode” and pull over safely. See paragraph 203.
In regard to claim 1, and claim 11 and 16, Yen discloses “1. A vehicle control apparatus comprising: (see claim 14(
Hari teaches “...a first controller configured to control one or more safety features of a vehicle; (see paragraph 327).
a second controller configured to perform primary control of autonomous driving of the vehicle; and (See paragraph 327).
a third controller configured to perform secondary control of the autonomous driving of the vehicle, (see paragraph 327)
Yen teaches “...wherein the first controller is further configured to:
determine whether the second controller or the third controller fails during the autonomous driving of the vehicle, and (see paragraph 92, 104 and 102 )
based on determining that the second controller or the third controller has failed, perform an autonomous driving function of the vehicle. (see paragraph 92-104 ).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yen with the teachings of Hari with a reasonable expectation of success by providing the signals for controlling components and/or systems of the autonomous vehicle in response to sensor data received from sensors as taught by Hari ([0328)).
PNG
media_image1.png
840
1420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The primary reference is silent but YOUSUF teaches “...wherein after the vehicle control apparatus requests transfer of control authority to a user during autonomous driving of the vehicle, based on a failure of the user to take over control authority from the vehicle control apparatus, (see blocks 304 where the processor can make rationality checks and in block 316 consistency checks on the path planning and see paragraph 176 where the processor faults in multiple systems are provided and then the user is to take control of the autonomous vehicle and then if the user fails to take control then the autonomous vehicle must conclude the trip safely and as fast as possible)
the vehicle control apparatus is configured to: perform a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) for reducing a speed of the vehicle and stopping the vehicle, and based on a failure of the second controller occurring during performance of the MRM, continue the MRM using the first controller”. (see paragraph 183 where the processor 202 and processor 206 are provided and a failure of the processor 202 allows the processor 206 to take over and processor 206 takes full control while the processor 2020 is a power cycling and a hard reset; and a driver is notified. See also paragraph 24 where the processor 202 and 206 are both in fault and then the autonomous mode is to pull over to the side of the road).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of YEN with the teachings of YOUSUF since YOUSUF teaches that 1. A primary processor 202 can be in a fault and 2. The second processor can take over operation of the vehicle 206 while the first processor is being reset and fixed. If both 202 and 206 are in fault and in failure then a braking processor and steering processor can be active to provide a “chauffeur stopping mode” and pull over safely. See paragraph 203.
Yousef teaches “...22. (New) The vehicle control apparatus of claim 11, wherein a safety controller
comprises the one or more processors, and
wherein the safety controller is configured to detect, via an in-vehicle communication
within the vehicle, a failure of at least one of the main controller or the auxiliary controller. (see paragraph 183 and 193-197 where the processor can fuse the radar and lidar and provide a safe stopping and in paragraph 199 in the event of the failure to vehicle can have the vehicle operator to take over)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of HERBACH with the teachings of YOUSUF since YOUSUF teaches that 1. A primary processor 202 can be in a fault and 2. The second processor can take over operation of the vehicle 206 while the first processor is being reset and fixed. If both 202 and 206 are in fault and in failure then a braking processor and steering processor can be active to provide a “chauffeur stopping mode” and pull over safely. See paragraph 203.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666