DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 02/23/2026. Claims 1-13 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant has argued that the claim amendments overcome the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the presented arguments merely amount to conclusory statements that are unpersuasive. The amendments do not overcome the patent eligibility rejections because the claim limitation specifying “wherein switching between the first proposal and the second proposal occurs when the variance or risk of the first proposal and the second proposal indicates a safer MRM” does not preclude the abstract idea from being practically performed in the human mind. This feature is not sufficient for overcoming the rejections because a human being could mentally decide to switch between the first and second proposals based on a mental analysis of whether the variance or risk of the proposals indicates a safer MRM. The examiner respectfully suggests incorporating the subject matter of claim 2 into the independent claims in order to overcome the patent-eligibility rejections.
Claim 13 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter, and includes no amendment that would overcome this rejection. As was explained in the previous Office actions, the examiner respectfully suggests removing the “computer instances” language from claim 13 in order to overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which are necessitated by the filed amendment.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
Applicant has not submitted any amendments or arguments addressing the rejections of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) set forth in the previous Office action. The examiner reminds applicant of 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b), which states that “In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action.” Accordingly, the previous rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) are being maintained, and applicant is required to address these rejections in any subsequent responses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 12-13:
Claims 1 and 12-13 each recite “wherein the predetermined evaluation criterion includes a time-dependent risk parameter representing a variance or uncertainty of the first proposal and the second proposal as a function of a position of the vehicle along the route.” However, this limitation is not adequately supported by the written description. P. 11 ll. 8-24 of the specification state that the “evaluation criterion can be formed from an item of information or a plurality of items of information. Some non-limiting examples are given in the following to illustrate this: … taking into account a variance of the values of the parameters of safety integrity and confidence as a function of time along the route 12 to be taken by the vehicle 1, for example on the basis of the increase in ‘uncertainty’ with regard to future dynamic states of vehicle components, which, as a result, can lead to an increase in the estimated risk of collision.” While this section provides support for the predetermined evaluation criterion including a time-dependent risk parameter representing a variance or uncertainty, this describes the use of a function of time along the route rather than a function of a position of the vehicle along the route.
Since the specification makes no mention of using a function of a position of the vehicle along the route as claimed, there is no sufficient support for this limitation. The lack of support for the limitation leads to questions about how the time-dependent risk parameter represents a variance or uncertainty of the proposals while being a function of a position of the vehicle along a route. This leads to doubt regarding possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Regarding claims 2-11:
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) due to their dependency upon rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent-eligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is directed to “One or more computers and/or computer instances.” Since this is an alternative limitation, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim encompasses the inclusion of only the computer instance(s) and no computers.
The recited computer instance(s), consistent with the specification, appear to solely comprise software elements (p. 7 ll. 28-29 of the specification states that “Computer instances can be virtual machines, containers, or serverless execution environments, for example.”). None of the elements of claim 13 appear to be physical components. MPEP 2106.03(I) states that “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as… a computer program per se (often referred to as ‘software per se’) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations.” Accordingly, the one or more computer instances are considered software per se, which is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 1 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 12-13:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method for determining a minimal risk maneuver (MRM) on a route to obtain a minimal risk condition (MRC) for a vehicle. Claim 12 is directed to the corresponding non-transitory machine-readable data medium. Claims 1 and 12 are each directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 13 is directed to one or more computers and/or computer instances, which does not fall within one of the four statutory categories. However, claim 13 could potentially be amended to be directed to statutory subject matter. For example, claim 13 could be amended to solely be directed to one or more computers. The remainder of the patent eligibility analysis will be performed assuming that claim 13 would be amended to fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claims 1 and 12-13 recite the abstract concept of determining a minimal risk maneuver (MRM) on a route to obtain a minimal risk condition (MRC) for a vehicle. This abstract idea is described at least in claims 1 and 12-13 by the mental process steps of “determining a first proposal for at least one part of the MRM to be determined,” “determining a second proposal for the at least one part of the MEM to be determined,” and “aggregating the first proposal and the second proposal into the at least one part of the MRM, and/or selecting the first proposal or the second proposal as the at least one part of the MRM, based on a predetermined evaluation, wherein the predetermined evaluation criterion includes a time-dependent risk parameter representing a variance or uncertainty of the first proposal and the second proposal as a function of a position of the vehicle along the route,” and “wherein switching between the first proposal and the second proposal occurs when the variance or risk of the first proposal and the second proposal indicates a safer MRM.” These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas as they could all be performed in the human mind with the help of pen and paper. A human could mentally determine the first and second proposals and then either aggregate the proposals into the part(s) of the MRM or select one of the proposals as the part(s) of the MRM based on a predetermined evaluation criterion, even if the predetermined evaluation criterion includes a time-dependent risk parameter as claimed. A human could consider a risk parameter representing variance or uncertainty of the proposals as a function of a position of the vehicle along the route when performing the aggregation or selection of the proposals. Further, a human could mentally decide to switch between the first and second proposals based on a mental analysis of whether the variance or risk of the proposals indicates a safer MRM. Accordingly, the limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover their performance in the human mind if not for the recitation of generic computing components.
With respect to claims 1 and 12-13, other than reciting “one or more computers and/or computer instances,” nothing in the claims precludes the idea from practically being performed in the human mind. If not for the “computers and/or computer instances” language, the claims encompass a human being mentally identifying the ascertained proposals and using pen and paper to write them down and either aggregate or select one of them based on a predetermined evaluation criterion that includes a time-dependent risk parameter representing a variance or uncertainty of the proposals as a function of a vehicle position along the route, wherein switching between the first proposal and the second proposal occurs when the variance or risk of the first proposal and the second proposal indicates a safer MRM.
Step 2A, prong 2: The claims recite elements additional to the abstract concepts. However, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 specifies that the first proposal is ascertained from data from a first, on-board data source of the vehicle and that the second proposal is ascertained from data from at least one second, off-board data source. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity, because they amount to necessary data gathering (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering). The recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 12 recites a non-transitory machine-readable data medium with a computer program that is executed by one or more computers and/or computer instances. These are all generic computer components (consistent with instant specification p. 7 l. 22-p. 8 l. 6) that are simply employed as tools for performing the abstract idea. The use of the such generic computer components does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 12 further specifies that the first proposal is ascertained from data from a first, on-board data source of the vehicle and that the second proposal is ascertained from data from at least one second, off-board data source. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity, because they amount to necessary data gathering (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering). The recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 13 recites one or more computers and/or computer instances, which are generic computer components (consistent with instant specification p. 7 l. 22-p. 8 l. 6) that are simply employed as tools for performing the abstract idea. The use of the such generic computer components does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 13 further specifies that the first proposal is ascertained from data from a first, on-board data source of the vehicle and that the second proposal is ascertained from data from at least one second, off-board data source. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity, because they amount to necessary data gathering (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering). The recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The additional elements are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the non-transitory machine-readable data medium, computer program, and one or more computers and/or computer instances are anything other than conventional computer components. The recitation of such generic, conventional computer components for performing the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, consistent with MPEP 2106.05(f).
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, the limitations of the claims that require ascertainment of the first proposal from an on-board data source of the vehicle and ascertainment of the second proposal from at least one off-board data source amount to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, consistent with MPEP 2106.05(g).
For the above reasons, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, whether considered individually or in combination. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1 and 12-13 are not patent-eligible.
Regarding claims 3-11:
Claims 3-11 recite the additional mental process steps of dividing the MRM into an on-board part and an externalizable part, incorporating a time scale of the MRM in the predetermined evaluation criterion and/or in a criterion for dividing the MRM into the on-board part and the externalizable part, incorporating at least one indicator of a reliability of the first proposal and/or second proposal in the predetermined evaluation criterion and/or in a criterion for switching at least one data source, adjusting a final MRM and/or a selected data source in real time over the route until the MRC is obtained in response to a change in an environmental or behavioral condition for the vehicle, restarting the method for at least one part of the MRM, and ascertaining the MRC together with a final MRM or from a final MRM. These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas as they could all be performed in the human mind with the help of pen and paper. For example, a human could write the on-board and externalizable parts into two categories, write down criterion conditions that incorporate a time scale or a reliability indicator, mentally change their mind about which data source should be selected based on an observed change in an environmental or behavioral condition for the vehicle, restart the method for at least one part of the MRM, and mentally ascertain the MRC together with a final MRM or from a final MRM. The limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover their performance in the human mind.
Dependent claims 3-11 only recite limitations further defining the mental process and additional mental process steps. These claims contain no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, dependent claims 3-11 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-13 are each rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalifeh et al. (US 2019/0118827 A1), hereinafter referred to as Khalifeh, in view of Gyllenhammar et al. (US 2024/0043036 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gyllenhammar, further in view of Smolyansky et al. (WO 2018/193449 A1), hereinafter referred to as Smolyansky, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2023/0382371 A1), hereinafter referred to as Park.
Regarding claim 1:
Khalifeh discloses the following limitations:
“A method for determining a minimal risk maneuver (MRM) on a route to obtain a minimal risk condition (MRC) for a vehicle, comprising the following steps: determining a first proposal for at least one part of the MRM to be determined, wherein the first proposal is ascertained from data from a first, on-board data source of the vehicle.” (Khalifeh ¶ 17: “A method for decentralized MRC control includes receiving a first minimum risk condition (MRC) event recommendation from a first platform controller.” Also, Khalifeh ¶ 23 and FIG. 2 disclose that the first platform controller can be an on-board module “such as a chassis controller, a powertrain controller, a body controller, an electrical controller, etc.”)
“determining a second proposal for the at least one part of the MRM to be determined, wherein the second proposal is ascertained from data from at least one second… data source.” (Khalifeh ¶ 17: “A method for decentralized MRC control includes receiving a first minimum risk condition (MRC) event recommendation from a first platform controller, receiving a second MRC event recommendation from a second platform controller.”)
“and aggregating the first proposal and the second proposal into the at least one part of the MRM, and/or selecting the first proposal or the second proposal as the at least one part of the MRM, based on a predetermined evaluation criterion.” (Khalifeh ¶¶ 17 and 19 disclose “selecting one of the first and second MRC event recommendations as a selected MRC event,” where “selecting one of the first and second MRC event recommendations as the selected MRC event may be based on a severity associated with the first MRC event recommendation and a severity associated with the second MRC event recommendation.” This at least teaches “selecting the first proposal or the second proposal as the at least one part of the MRM, based on a predetermined evaluation criterion” as claimed.)
Khalifeh does not specifically disclose that “the second proposal is ascertained from data from at least one second, off-board data source.” However, Gyllenhammar does teach this limitation. (Gyllenhammar ¶ 83: “the control circuitry of the in-vehicle system 10 is configured to locally generate a candidate path based on the augmented world-view of the ADS. Moreover, a remotely generated candidate path 44a is received, where the remotely generated path 44a is generated by the remote system 2 based on the supplementary world-view.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Khalifeh by obtaining the second proposal from a remote system as is taught by Gyllenhammar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Gyllenhammar ¶ 4 teaches that this helps with constructing a sufficiently rich representation of the surrounding environment of the vehicle while conforming to the limitations posed by the available hardware and power resources that can be included onboard the vehicle.
The combination of Khalifeh and Gyllenhammar does not specifically teach “wherein the predetermined evaluation criterion includes a time-dependent risk parameter representing a variance or uncertainty of the first proposal and the second proposal as a function of a position of the vehicle along the route.” However, Smolyansky does teach this limitation. (Smolyansky ¶ 58: “system 100 may analyze image data, position data (e.g., GPS location information), map data, speed data, and/or data from sensors included in vehicle 200. … Further, system 100 may analyze the collected data to determine whether or not vehicle 200 should take a certain action, and then automatically take the determined action without human intervention.” Also, Smolyansky ¶ 88 disclose that errors indicative of critical or non-critical errors of a first driving related system and a second driving related system are sent to a selection module, and Smolyansky ¶ 120 discloses that “The selection module 119 may select to output signals from the more secure (fault free) driving related system.” This disclosure at least teaches that the evaluation criterion includes a time-dependent risk parameter representing an uncertainty of the proposals as a function of a vehicle position along the route as claimed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Khalifeh and Gyllenhammar by considering the uncertainty of the proposals and the vehicle position when selecting a vehicle action as taught by Smolyansky with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Smolyansky ¶¶ 120 and 128 teach that this allows selection of an action that is more secure and reliable and less likely to be faulty.
The combination of Khalifeh, Gyllenhammar, and Smolyansky does not explicitly teach “wherein switching between the first proposal and the second proposal occurs when the variance or risk of the first proposal and the second proposal indicates a safer MRM.” However, Park does teach this limitation. (Park ¶ 160: “The high-level transition from the first or level 2 MRM type to the fourth or level MRM type is as follows. The high-level transition can be performed … when an external condition in which the vehicle stops according to a low-level type but the stop position is determined to have a high risk of accident (e.g., the first lane of a highway, on a railroad, a junction, etc.) and an internal condition in which acceleration of the vehicle is possible are satisfied.” This at least teaches that switching between the proposals occurs when the risk of the proposals indicates a safer MRM as claimed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Khalifeh, Gyllenhammar, and Smolyansky by switching between proposals based on a risk of the proposals indicating a safer MRM as taught by Park with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Park ¶ 160 teaches that this allows for a different proposal to be used in order to mitigate an accident risk. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this would help with avoiding unnecessary injuries and damages to the vehicle or other objects in the environment.
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 1, consistent with the instant specification, “aggregating the first proposal and the second proposal into the at least one part of the MRM, and/or selecting the first proposal or the second proposal as the at least one part of the MRM, based on a predetermined evaluation criterion,” the “time-dependent risk parameter representing a variance or uncertainty,” and switching between proposals occurring “when the variance or risk of the first proposal and the second proposal indicates a safer MRM” are each treated as an alternative limitations. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “selecting” step, the “uncertainty,” and the “risk” have been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Khalifeh, Gyllenhammar, Smolyansky, and Park teaches “The method as recited in claim 1,” and Khalifeh further teaches “wherein the vehicle is actuated to execute the at least one part of the MRM.” (Khalifeh ¶ 17 discloses “selecting one of the first and second MRC event recommendations as a selected MRC event, and controlling an autonomous host vehicle according to the selected MRC event.”)
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Khalifeh, Gyllenhammar, Smolyansky, and Park teaches “The method as recited in claim 1,” and Gyllenhammar additionally teaches “wherein the data for the at least second, off-board data source are used from at least one of the following sources: sensor data from an external vehicle, or infrastructure data from an external edge system, or data from an external cloud system, or geographical map data.” (Gyllenhammar ¶ 97: “control circuitry 11 is configured to transmit sensor data comprising information about the surrounding environment of the vehicle to a remote system (such as e.g. a cloud service) 2. The control circuitry 11 is further configured to obtain the off-board processed data from the remote system 2.” This at least teaches the off-board data being used from “an external cloud system” as claimed.)
Note that under the BRI of claim 3, consistent with the specification, “the data for the at least second, off-board data source [being] used from at least one of the following sources: sensor data from an external vehicle, or infrastructure data from an external edge system, or data from an external cloud system, or geographical map data” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “external cloud system” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Khalifeh, Smolyansky, and Park by using off-board data that is processed using an external cloud service as taught by Gyllenhammar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Gyllenhammar ¶ 10 teaches that “Moving to cloud processing for real-time control has several technical advantages related to the increased flexibility achieved when the algorithms and models used are decoupled from the on-board platform.”
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Khalifeh, Gyllenhammar, Smolyansky, and Park teaches “The method as recited in claim 1,” and Gyllenhammar further teaches “wherein the MRM to be determined is divided into at least one on-board part ascertained only from data from the first, on-board data source of the vehicle, and at least one externalizable part, for which the first proposal and the second proposal are ascertained.” (Gyllenhammar ¶ 84: “the control circuitry is configured to select (e.g. by means of a path selection algorithm/module 28) one candidate path for execution by the ADS based on the locally generated candidate path, the remotely generated candidate path, and at least one predefined criterion.” This implies that the local and remote data are stored as separate parts as claimed. Also, Gyllenhammar ¶ 89 further suggests that the local and remote data is stored separately: “a path-feedback signal 46 is transmitted back to the remote system for learning purposes. The path feedback signal 46 may for example be indicative of the selected path, and if the remotely generated path 46 was rejected, one or more rationales or reasons as to why the remotely generated path 46 was rejected.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Khalifeh, Smolyansky, and Park by dividing the onboard data from the remote data as taught by Gyllenhammar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Gyllenhammar ¶ 53 teaches that distinguishing between the local and remote data can help provide continuous improvement by using feedback related to which data source was better for the final maneuver.
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Khalifeh, Gyllenhammar, Smolyansky, and Park teaches “The method as recited in claim 1,” and Gyllenhammar additionally teaches “wherein the second proposal is ascertained at a central data-processing facility responsible for a plurality of vehicles or at a plurality of data-processing facilities responsible for a plurality of vehicles in parallel.” (See Gyllenhammar ¶ 50:“An additional advantage of having for ADS software (such as e.g. perception processing) deployed centrally on a ‘cloud platform’ is that decisions and planning based on interactions between multiple vehicles may be performed without having to transfer data between individual vehicles.” This at least teaches the second proposal being “ascertained at a central data-processing facility responsible for a plurality of vehicles” as claimed.)
Note that under the BRI of claim 5, consistent with the specification, the second proposal being “ascertained at a central data-processing facility responsible for a plurality of vehicles or at a plurality of data-processing facilities responsible for a plurality of vehicles in parallel” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “central data-processing facility responsible for a plurality of vehicles” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Khalifeh, Smolyansky, and Park by using a central platform responsible for multiple vehicles as the off-board data source as is taught by Gyllenhammar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Gyllenhammar ¶ 50 teaches that this provides the advantage of allowing decisions and planning based on vehicle interactions to be performed without having to transfer data between the individual vehicles.
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Khalifeh, Gyllenhammar, Smolyansky, and Park teaches “The method as recited in claim 4,” and Gyllenhammar additionally teaches “wherein a time scale of the MRM to be determined is incorporated in the predetermined evaluation criterion for the first and second proposals and/or in a criterion for dividing the MRM into the on-board part and the externalizable part.” (Gyllenhammar ¶ 33: “for certain safety aspects (emergency actions and other actions that require quicker response times) in which time delay is critical, e.g. less than 10 ms, it is necessary to keep the safety related perception processing, decision and control processing in the car.” This at least teaches to incorporate a time scale of the MRM into the predetermined evaluation condition as claimed.)
Note that under the BRI of claim 6, consistent with the specification, a time scale of the MRM being “incorporated in the predetermined evaluation criterion for the first and second proposals and/or in a criterion for dividing the MRM into the on-board part and the externalizable part” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the term “and/or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only incorporating the time scale into the predetermined evaluation criterion has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Khalifeh, Smolyansky, and Park by favoring the local proposal in time-sensitive situations that require a quick decision as taught by Gyllenhammar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Gyllenhammar ¶ 33 teaches that with the use of this modification, “the ADS is configured such that a delay in the communication with the remote system doesn't jeopardize the safety of the system.”
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Khalifeh, Gyllenhammar, Smolyansky, and Park teaches “The method as recited in claim 1,” and Gyllenhammar additionally teaches “wherein at least one indicator of a reliability of the first proposal and/or the second proposal is incorporated in the predetermined evaluation criterion for the proposals and/or in a criterion for switching at least one data source.” (Gyllenhammar ¶ 60: “a trigger may activate the transmission 102 of sensor data to the remote system. The trigger may for example be a class probability score (of the on-board perception output) being below a first threshold value, or a confidence score (of the on-board perception output) being below a second threshold value.” This at least teaches that an indicator of reliability of the first proposal being incorporated into a criterion for switching a data source as claimed.)
Note that under the BRI of claim 7, consistent with the specification, the recited limitation “wherein at least one indicator of a reliability of the first proposal and/or the second proposal is incorporated in the predetermined evaluation criterion for the proposals and/or in a criterion for switching at least one data source” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the term “and/or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only an indicator of reliability of the first proposal being incorporated into a criterion for switching a data source has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Khalifeh, Smolyansky, and Park by transmitting the sensor data to the remote system based on a confidence score associated with the on-board perception system as taught by Gyllenhammar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Gyllenhammar ¶¶ 60-61 teach that this can help the remote system to provide more informed and accurate support, especially when the local system is outdated or does not have the same level of functionality as the remote system.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Khalifeh, Gyllenhammar, Smolyansky, and Park teaches “The method as recited in claim 7,” and Gyllenhammar further teaches “wherein the indicator of the reliability includes at least one of the following parameters: a safety integrity of provided information, a degree of reliability or variance of the provided information, a risk level of the ascertained MRM over a defined duration.” (Gyllenhammar ¶ 55 discloses “comparing 104 the local world-view of the ADS with the supplementary world-view of the ADS so to determine a confidence level of the local world-view based on the comparison. Further, in some embodiments, the method 100 further comprises generating 109 at an output, a confidence signal indicative of the determined confidence level of the local world-view of the ADS.” This at least teaches the indicator of the reliability including a degree of reliability or variance of the provided information as claimed.)
Note that under the BRI of claim 8, consistent with the specification, the indicator of the reliability including “at least one of the following parameters: a safety integrity of provided information, a degree of reliability or variance of the provided information, a risk level of the ascertained MRM over a defined duration” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “degree of reliability or variance of the provided information” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Khalifeh, Smolyansky, and Park by using a confidence level defining the reliability and accuracy of the local system as taught by Gyllenhammar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Gyllenhammar ¶¶ 60-61 teach that with this modification, when the confidence level is too low, the remote system can be called on to provide more informed and accurate support, especially when the local system is outdated or does not have the same level of functionality as the remote system.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Khalifeh, Gyllenhammar, Smolyansky, and Park teaches “The method as recited in claim 1,” and Park also teaches “wherein in response to a change in an environmental or behavioral condition for the vehicle, a final MRM and/or a selected data source for determining at least one of the first and second proposals is adjusted in real time over the route until the MRC is obtained.” (Park ¶ 144: “the most suitable MRM type may be determined at a point of time when the MRM is implemented. This decision is made based on internal information (e.g., the state of the system or vehicle) and external information (e.g., the degree of congestion of surrounding traffic, ODD). The thus determined MRM type may be transitioned to another MRM type when a specific event occurs.” This at least teaches that in response to a change in an environmental condition for the vehicle, a final MRM is adjusted in real time over the route until the MRC is obtained as claimed.)
Note that under the BRI of claim 9, consistent with the specification, “in response to a change in an environmental or behavioral condition for the vehicle, a final MRM and/or a selected data source for determining at least one of the first and second proposals [being] adjusted in real time over the route until the MRC is obtained” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” and the term “and/or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the environmental condition and final MRM have been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Khalifeh, Gyllenhammar, and Smolyansky by adjusting the selection of a minimal risk maneuver based on changes in environmental conditions as taught by Park with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Park ¶ 124 teaches that this allows for an appropriate minimal risk maneuver to be selected to help ensure the safety of the vehicle occupants. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that vehicle environments are dynamic and have a large impact on influencing the most optimal minimal risk maneuver.
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Khalifeh, Gyllenhammar, Smolyansky, and Park teaches “The method as recited in claim 9,” and Park additionally teaches “wherein adjusting the MRM includes re-starting the method for at least one part of the MRM.” (Park ¶ 146: “By the MRM implementation step (S1040), the vehicle may become the MRC state (S1050). Alternatively, the vehicle may return to the ADS state monitoring step (S1020), and then steps S1020, S1030, and S1040 may be repeated.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Khalifeh, Gyllenhammar, and Smolyansky by repeating steps for monitoring the vehicle state, determining the minimal risk maneuver, and implementing the minimal risk maneuver as taught by Park with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Park ¶ 144 teaches that it can be helpful to transition to another minimal risk maneuver as the vehicle state or external information changes. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the vehicle state and surrounding environment are dynamic variables that can have a large impact on influencing the most optimal minimal risk maneuver; therefore, it would be beneficial to revisit the minimal risk maneuver and update it to account for changes in the vehicle state and surrounding environment.
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Khalifeh, Gyllenhammar, Smolyansky, and Park teaches “The method as recited in claim 1,” and Park further teaches “wherein the MRC is ascertained together with a final MRM or from a final MRM.” (Park ¶¶ 144-146: “The thus determined MRM type may be transitioned to another MRM type when a specific event occurs. … By the MRM implementation step (S1040), the vehicle may become the MRC state (S1050).” This at least teaches to ascertain an MRC from a final MRM as claimed.)
Note that under the BRI of claim 11, consistent with the instant specification, the MRC being “ascertained together with a final MRM or from a final MRM” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the ascertainment of an MRC “from a final MRM” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Khalifeh, Gyllenhammar, and Smolyansky by obtaining an MRC from a final MRM as taught by Park, because this is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Obtaining an MRC based on the final selected MRM is known in the art and would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the MRM performance method of Park or whether integrated into the MRC vehicle control method that is disclosed by the combination of Khalifeh, Gyllenhammar, and Smolyansky.
Regarding claim 12:
Khalifeh discloses “A non-transitory machine-readable data medium on which is stored a computer program for determining a minimal risk maneuver (MRM) on a route to obtain a minimal risk condition (MRC) for a vehicle, the computer program, when executed by one or more computers and/or computer instances, cause the one or more computers and/or computer instances to perform” steps. (Khalifeh ¶¶ 41-42: “In general, a processor (e.g., a microprocessor) receives instructions, e.g., from a memory, a computer-readable medium, etc., and executes these instructions, thereby performing one or more processes, including one or more of the processes described herein. Such instructions and other data may be stored and transmitted using a variety of computer-readable media. A computer-readable medium (also referred to as a processor-readable medium) includes any non-transitory (e.g., tangible) medium that participates in providing data (e.g., instructions) that may be read by a computer (e.g., by a processor of a computer).”)
The remaining limitations of claim 12 are taught by Khalifeh in view of Gyllenhammar, Smolyansky, and Park using the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 12 above, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lopez (US 2023/0063368 A1) Abstract and ¶ 110 disclose system and methods for “selection of optimal minimal risk maneuver,” where the selected maneuver can be updated based on a determined reward value, and where reward values can be generated based on safety rules.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662