DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Amendment and Remarks filed on 2/13/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 13 were canceled.
Claims 1-12,14-19 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9, filed “Claims 1-12 and 14-18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for reciting "a checking unit comprising program instructions processed by the second processor" in claim 1 and 12. That recitation has been removed from claims 1 and 12, as currently amended” on 2/13/2026, with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
As to point (A), the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of 1-12 and 14-18 has been withdrawn.
(B) Applicant's arguments filed “Amended claim 1 requires that the checking unit itself create a list each control cycle and that the list (i) includes only those primary trajectories that passed the check and (ii) in addition includes the safety trajectory from the second planner. This is a substantive architectural constraint: the checker-authored data structure with mandatory membership is then the source from which a trajectory is selected. By contrast, Koopman describes safety gates and a priority selector that conditionally outputs one of the verified signals depending on availability (e.g., verified primary if received; verified safing if only that is received; default otherwise), i.e., an if/else switch rather than a selection from a checker-created list.” on 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (B), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes Fig. 7 and Para 72 of Koopman disclosed “FIG. 7 is a diagram showing an example of an occupancy grid 700 for motion planning in reaction to a falling tree. Suppose that the obstacle 608 in FIG. 6 is a large tree. After creating the trajectory 610 as shown in FIG. 6, the tree falls in the intended path. This change updates the state of the map as indicated in grid 700 of FIG. 7, and therefore triggers the Safing Planner 516 (in FIG. 5) to generate three emergency trajectories (t0, t1 and t2). Since the safe stopping trajectory t0 does not collide with the obstacle 708, trajectory t0 is selected and immediately applied. However, if the vehicle 702 is too large to stop in the time calculated for trajectory t0, trajectory t2 is invalidated by the obstacle 708 and is therefore not considered. In this situation, the vehicle 702 selects the safe alternative trajectory t1 instead”. The different trajectories including trajectory 610(travel trajectory provided by the first trajectory planner) and emergency trajectories t0, t1 and t2(the safety travel trajectory produced by the second trajectory planner) would encompasses a list of trajectories. The process of “the Safing Planner 516 (in FIG. 5) to generate three emergency trajectories (t0, t1 and t2)” and “trajectory t0 is selected and immediately applied” indicated selection from the list. Furthermore, Fig. 8 and Para 101 “The system may include a priority selector that evaluates the logic data to make a selection. The logic data specifies rules that define that which data is selected under specific conditions. The primary data is selected after determining that the primary data provides for the moving of the device on the planned path in the safe manner. The secondary data is selected after determining that (i) the primary data does not provide for the moving of the device on the planned path in the safe manner and (ii) the secondary data provides for the moving of the device so as to avoid the one or more adverse conditions” disclosed logic based selection from the validated primary and secondary data.
(C) Applicant's arguments filed “Further with respect to claims 4 and 9, Lapin discloses an offline/iterative cost-function weight tuning framework to make trajectories more human-like. It lacks a safety architecture, a checking unit, a list creation, and a hardware/time independence. Lapin, therefore, cannot cure the deficiencies of Hauler/Koopman with respect to dependent claims 4 and 9, which are directed to the first trajectory planner calculating an evaluation indicator for each of the travel trajectories that forms a measure of comfort and safety of the respective travel trajectory” on 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (C), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes Para 45 of Lapin disclosed “The system may determine one more performance metrics for evaluating the trajectory planner. For example, the system may determine a driving safety metric (e.g., closest distances to obstacles and boundary lines) to indicate the degree of safety and a driving comfort metric (e.g., acceleration profiles for stop signs, lateral acceleration during driving, turning radiuses, etc.) to indicate the comfort level for riding passengers” which indicated determining safety in combination with comfort.
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.
Claim 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauler (US20150246678A1) in view of Koopman (US20190056735A1).
In regards to claim 1, Hauler teaches A method for planning an at least partially automated driving process with a driver assistance system of a vehicle, said method comprising
determining at least one possible future driving process by the driver assistance system(Hauler: Para 42 “A behavior generation in a step S5 enables a planning of actions which are required in order to implement the situation which was previously predicted. For example, this may include the planning of a lane change which is to be carried out or a change in velocity of motor vehicle 10 which is to be carried out”);
calculating at least one travel trajectory for the at least one driving process by a first trajectory planner, the first trajectory planner comprising program instructions processed by a first processor(Hauler: Para 43 “According to the present invention it is now provided that in the automated driving operation of motor vehicle 10, so-called standard trajectories ST1 are generated in a step S6 and transmitted to a control system 40, the mathematical data of trajectories ST1 being converted with the aid of control system 40 into data which are processable by an actuator device 1. Control system 40 transmits the mentioned data to actuator device 1 of motor vehicle 10, which may include multiple actuators (steering actuators, for example.)”);
calculating a safety travel trajectory by a second trajectory planner (Hauler: Para 44 “Essentially simultaneously or also chronologically in very short succession, a safety zone B or a safety trajectory ST2 is created in step S6, in particular cyclically, which is also transmitted to control system 40 or transmitted by it to actuator device 1. For the calculation of safety zone B or safety trajectory ST2, the detected movement of other road users must be predicted, taking physically possible and probable movement changes into consideration”) …
selecting a trajectory from the list of travel trajectories(Hauler: Para 25 “multiple safety trajectories and multiple safety zones are generated during the automatic driving operation, one of the safety trajectories or one of the safety zones being selected by the error monitoring device after analyzing the error case. In this way, the trajectory or the safety zone which corresponds best to the respective error pattern may be selected in an advantageous way in order to guide the vehicle safely”); and
controlling the at least partially automated driving process by the autonomous driver assistance system based on the selected trajectory(Hauler: Para 46 “Error monitoring device 30 thus represents a control authority, in a manner of speaking, which establishes whether motor vehicle 10 is to be guided according to standard trajectory ST1 or whether there are circumstances where it appears reasonable for the motor vehicle to be guided into safety zone B or along safety or replacement trajectory ST2”; Para 43 “standard trajectories ST1 are generated in a step S6 and transmitted to a control system 40, the mathematical data of trajectories ST1 being converted with the aid of control system 40 into data which are processable by an actuator device 1. Control system 40 transmits the mentioned data to actuator device 1 of motor vehicle 10, which may include multiple actuators (steering actuators, for example.)”; Para 44 “a safety zone B or a safety trajectory ST2 is created in step S6, in particular cyclically, which is also transmitted to control system 40 or transmitted by it to actuator device 1”).
Yet Hauler do not explicitly teach wherein the safety travel trajectory is calculated independently in time of, and on different hardware than, the calculation of the at least one travel trajectory by the first trajectory planner;
checking, for each control cycle, the at least one travel trajectory provided by the first trajectory planner and creating, for the control cycle, a list of travel trajectories by a checking unit, the checking unit comprising hardware and software such that the checking unit meets a safety level higher than that of the first trajectory planner, the list of travel trajectories containing those travel trajectories provided by the first trajectory planner which have passed the check by the checking unit and, in addition, containing the safety travel trajectory produced by the second trajectory planner.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Koopman teaches wherein the safety travel trajectory is calculated independently in time of, and on different hardware than, the calculation of the at least one travel trajectory by the first trajectory planner (Koopman: Fig. 2 Element 204; Fig. 5 Element 516; Para 29 “The Simplex architecture includes two distinct control components: the Complex Subsystem 202 and the Safety Subsystem 204. The Complex Subsystem 202 may be a sophisticated control algorithm that is difficult to develop to a sufficient level of integrity. The Safety Subsystem 204 can provide similar, but simplified control features as the Complex Subsystem 202, but does so using a high-integrity implementation”; Para 31 “the Complex Subsystem 202 could use a traditional robotic path-planning algorithm. The Safety Subsystem 204 could be a safe shutdown control subsystem (e.g., bring the vehicle to a stop in a controlled manner)”; Para 59 “the Safing Planner 516 in AGV-relevant implementations produces feasible trajectories designed to enable the vehicle to stop quickly and safely when problems occur. The Safing Planner 516 provides an emergency option for the vehicle and continually reevaluates the plans as the vehicle moves through the world and as a dynamic or static obstacle is encountered”);
checking, for each control cycle, the at least one travel trajectory provided by the first trajectory planner and creating, for the control cycle, a list of travel trajectories by a checking unit, the checking unit comprising hardware and software such that the checking unit meets a safety level higher than that of the first trajectory planner(Koopman: Para 52 “The output of the Primary Planner 512, which in some AGV-relevant implementations is a trajectory consisting of a sequence of waypoints, is checked by the Primary Planner Safety Gate (PPSG) 514. The PPSG 514 checks whether the Primary Planner's 512 output is valid using an application-specific check, and further checks that the output is within the permissive envelope (PE) provided by the Safing Planner Safety Gate (SPSG) 518”; i.e. Primary Planner Safety Gate uses application-specific check would indicate higher safety level), the list of travel trajectories containing those travel trajectories provided by the first trajectory planner which have passed the check by the checking unit and, in addition, containing the safety travel trajectory produced by the second trajectory planner(Koopman: Fig. 2 Element 208; Fig. 5 Element 514 and 518; Fig. 8; Para 34 “The Decision Logic 208 includes a “trajectory evaluation” component that evaluates the trajectories produced by the Complex Subsystem 202”; Para 9 “a primary planner safety gate that receives the primary path data from the primary planner unit, determines whether the primary path data provides for the moving of the device in accordance with the primary path data in a safe manner, and provides the primary path data as a verified primary path output in response to a determination that the primary path data provides for the moving of the device in accordance with the primary path data in the safe manner; a safing planner safety gate that receives the safing path data from the safing planner unit, determines whether the safing path data provides for the moving of the device so as to avoid the one or more adverse conditions, and provides the safing path data as a verified safing path output in response to a determination that the safing path data provides for the moving of the device so as to avoid the one or more adverse conditions”; Para 72 “FIG. 7 is a diagram showing an example of an occupancy grid 700 for motion planning in reaction to a falling tree. Suppose that the obstacle 608 in FIG. 6 is a large tree. After creating the trajectory 610 as shown in FIG. 6, the tree falls in the intended path. This change updates the state of the map as indicated in grid 700 of FIG. 7, and therefore triggers the Safing Planner 516 (in FIG. 5) to generate three emergency trajectories (t0, t1 and t2). Since the safe stopping trajectory t0 does not collide with the obstacle 708, trajectory t0 is selected and immediately applied. However, if the vehicle 702 is too large to stop in the time calculated for trajectory t0, trajectory t2 is invalidated by the obstacle 708 and is therefore not considered. In this situation, the vehicle 702 selects the safe alternative trajectory t1 instead”; Para 101 “The system may include a priority selector that evaluates the logic data to make a selection. The logic data specifies rules that define that which data is selected under specific conditions. The primary data is selected after determining that the primary data provides for the moving of the device on the planned path in the safe manner. The secondary data is selected after determining that (i) the primary data does not provide for the moving of the device on the planned path in the safe manner and (ii) the secondary data provides for the moving of the device so as to avoid the one or more adverse conditions”; i.e. the list of travel trajectories contains those travel trajectories provided by the first trajectory planner (verified primary path output) which have passed the check by the checking unit (primary planner safety gate) and, in addition, contains the safety travel trajectory(verified safing path output) produced by the second trajectory planner(the safing path data from the safing planner unit)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify A method for planning an at least partially automated driving process with a driver assistance system of a vehicle of Hauler with the feature of wherein the safety travel trajectory is calculated independently in time of, and on different hardware than, the calculation of the at least one travel trajectory by the first trajectory planner; checking, for each control cycle, the at least one travel trajectory provided by the first trajectory planner and creating, for the control cycle, a list of travel trajectories by a checking unit, the checking unit comprising hardware and software such that the checking unit meets a safety level higher than that of the first trajectory planner, the list of travel trajectories containing those travel trajectories provided by the first trajectory planner which have passed the check by the checking unit and, in addition, containing the safety travel trajectory produced by the second trajectory planner disclosed by Koopman. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “mitigate safety risks posed by autonomous functions such as planning and control” (Koopman Para 3).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Hauler and Koopman teaches The method according to Claim 1, and Hauler further teaches wherein the first trajectory planner meets a lower safety level than a safety level of the second trajectory planner (Hauler: Para 43 “standard trajectories ST1 are generated in a step S6 and transmitted to a control system 40, the mathematical data of trajectories ST1 being converted with the aid of control system 40 into data which are processable by an actuator device 1”; Para 44 “For the calculation of safety zone B or safety trajectory ST2, the detected movement of other road users must be predicted, taking physically possible and probable movement changes into consideration”; i.e. safety zone B or safety trajectory ST2 calculated with physically possible and probable movement changes taken into consideration therefor higher safety level).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Hauler and Koopman teaches The method according to Claim 1, and Koopman further teaches wherein the first trajectory planner meets a lower safety level than a safety level of the checking unit(Koopman: Para 52 “The output of the Primary Planner 512, which in some AGV-relevant implementations is a trajectory consisting of a sequence of waypoints, is checked by the Primary Planner Safety Gate (PPSG) 514. The PPSG 514 checks whether the Primary Planner's 512 output is valid using an application-specific check, and further checks that the output is within the permissive envelope (PE) provided by the Safing Planner Safety Gate (SPSG) 518”; i.e. Primary Planner Safety Gate uses application-specific check would indicate higher safety level). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Hauler and Koopman as in Claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Hauler and Koopman teaches The method according to Claim 1, and Koopman further teaches wherein the safety travel trajectory is calculated by the second trajectory planner in such a way that the safety travel trajectory, starting from the current vehicle position, indicates a movement path (Koopman: Para 59 “the Safing Planner 516 in AGV-relevant implementations produces feasible trajectories designed to enable the vehicle to stop quickly and safely when problems occur. The Safing Planner 516 provides an emergency option for the vehicle and continually reevaluates the plans as the vehicle moves through the world and as a dynamic or static obstacle is encountered”) which is collision-free and observes a predefined distance from other vehicles and/or objects in the vicinity of the vehicle (Koopman: Para 56 “During the trajectory generation phase, the paths produced are able to transition a vehicle from start to goal without violating the collision constraints (imposed by the occupancy grid) or kinematic constraints (as imposed by the vehicle model). By considering these constraints during the generation phase, controls are generated for the vehicle such that it is able to follow the solution trajectory”). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Hauler and Koopman as in Claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Hauler and Koopman teaches The method according to Claim 1, and Koopman further teaches wherein the safety travel trajectory keeps the vehicle in the current lane(Koopman: Fig. 7 Element t0; Para 56 “This model limits the vehicle's movement to only three possible ways: turn right arc, turn left arc, and go straight. By constructing trajectories using sequences of these motion primitives, controls to follow the trajectory are generated during the control generation phase given a path that satisfies these constraints (assuming the turning radius matches the physical vehicle)”; Para 72 “After creating the trajectory 610 as shown in FIG. 6, the tree falls in the intended path. This change updates the state of the map as indicated in grid 700 of FIG. 7, and therefore triggers the Safing Planner 516 (in FIG. 5) to generate three emergency trajectories (t0, t1 and t2)”)). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Hauler and Koopman as in Claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Hauler and Koopman teaches The method according to Claim 1, and Koopman further teaches wherein the travel trajectory calculated by the first trajectory planner and examined by the checking unit is selected instead of the safety travel trajectory(Koopman: Para 9 “a priority selector that is coupled to the primary trajectory safety gate to receive the verified primary trajectory output, to the safing trajectory safety gate to receive the verified safing trajectory output, and to a controller to provide control data, the priority selector provides as the control data one of: the verified primary trajectory output if the verified primary trajectory output is received, the verified safing trajectory output if only the verified safing trajectory output is received, or a default output if neither the verified primary trajectory output nor the verified safing trajectory output is received”). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Hauler and Koopman as in Claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Hauler and Koopman teaches The method according to Claim 1, and Koopman further teaches wherein the selecting selects the safety travel trajectory if the list of travel trajectories does not contain any travel trajectory calculated by the first trajectory planner and examined by the checking unit(Koopman: Para 9 “a priority selector that is coupled to the primary trajectory safety gate to receive the verified primary trajectory output, to the safing trajectory safety gate to receive the verified safing trajectory output, and to a controller to provide control data, the priority selector provides as the control data one of: the verified primary trajectory output if the verified primary trajectory output is received, the verified safing trajectory output if only the verified safing trajectory output is received, or a default output if neither the verified primary trajectory output nor the verified safing trajectory output is received”). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Hauler and Koopman as in Claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Hauler and Koopman teaches The method according to Claim 1, and Koopman further teaches wherein a calculation period of the safety travel trajectory by the second trajectory planner is shorter than a calculation period of the at least one travel trajectory by the first trajectory planner(Koopman: Para 10 “The safing trajectory safety gate may determine whether the safing trajectory data was received within a predefined time window to determine whether the safing trajectory data is consistent with the current state of the device”).. The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Hauler and Koopman as in Claim 1 above.
As per claim 12, it recites “A driver assistance system for a vehicle” having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Hauler and Koopman teaches The driver assistance system according to Claim 12, and Koopman further teaches wherein the first trajectory planner comprises program instructions which are processed by a processor which is independent of the processor of the checking unit (Koopman: Fig. 2 Element 202, 204, and 208; Para 30 “The scope of costly verification and validation is focused on the safety subsystem 204 and decision logic 208, which, if designed properly, are relatively simple components. Achieving these benefits, however, may require careful design analysis and strict adherence to requirements. In the Simplex architecture there are two doers (safety subsystem 204, complex subsystem 202) and one checker (decision logic 208)”). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Hauler and Koopman as in Claim 1 above.
Claim 4, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauler (US20150246678A1) in view of Koopman (US20190056735A1) further in view of Lapin(US20210403034A1).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Hauler and Koopman teaches The method according to claim 1.
Yet the combination of Hauler and Koopman do not explicitly teach wherein the first trajectory planner calculates an evaluation indicator for each of the travel trajectories, which forms a measure of comfort and safety of the respective travel trajectory.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lapin teaches wherein the first trajectory planner calculates an evaluation indicator for each of the travel trajectories, which forms a measure of comfort and safety of the respective travel trajectory (Lapin: Para 48 “the trajectory generator may generate a number of candidate trajectories based on the driving constraints of the environment. The trajectory may be selected from one of the candidate trajectories based on an associated cost function. In particular embodiments, the associated cost function may be associated with a number of cost terms. Each cost term may be associated with a weight indicating a relative importance level of that cost term. In particular embodiments, the cost terms of the cost function may include one or more of: a distance to a closest obstacle, a distance to a lane boundary, a distance to a lead vehicle, a relative speed with respect to a lead vehicle, a difference between a trajectory speed and a speed limit, a maximum jerk, a maximum acceleration, a vehicle steering angle, a vehicle position, or a factor representing safety and comfort of a vehicle trajectory. In particular embodiments, the trajectory may be selected from the candidate trajectories based on a trajectory-evaluation metric determined using the associated cost function based on the cost terms and the weights”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of the combination of Hauler and Koopman with the feature of wherein the first trajectory planner calculates an evaluation indicator for each of the travel trajectories, which forms a measure of comfort and safety of the respective travel trajectory disclosed by Lapin. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “the trajectory planner meets the validation criteria (e.g., meeting criteria for the safety metric and comfort metric) with the output trajectory matching human driving trajectories” (Lapin: Para 45).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Hauler and Koopman teaches The method according to Claim 1, and Koopman further teaches wherein the selecting comprises selecting that travel trajectory calculated by the first trajectory planner and examined by the checking unit (Koopman: Para 9 “a priority selector that is coupled to the primary trajectory safety gate to receive the verified primary trajectory output, to the safing trajectory safety gate to receive the verified safing trajectory output, and to a controller to provide control data, the priority selector provides as the control data one of: the verified primary trajectory output if the verified primary trajectory output is received, the verified safing trajectory output if only the verified safing trajectory output is received, or a default output if neither the verified primary trajectory output nor the verified safing trajectory output is received”), while Lapin further teaches an evaluation indicator of which indicates that the travel trajectory offers maximum comfort and maximum safety(Lapin: Para 48 “the trajectory generator may generate a number of candidate trajectories based on the driving constraints of the environment. The trajectory may be selected from one of the candidate trajectories based on an associated cost function. In particular embodiments, the associated cost function may be associated with a number of cost terms. Each cost term may be associated with a weight indicating a relative importance level of that cost term. In particular embodiments, the cost terms of the cost function may include one or more of: a distance to a closest obstacle, a distance to a lane boundary, a distance to a lead vehicle, a relative speed with respect to a lead vehicle, a difference between a trajectory speed and a speed limit, a maximum jerk, a maximum acceleration, a vehicle steering angle, a vehicle position, or a factor representing safety and comfort of a vehicle trajectory. In particular embodiments, the trajectory may be selected from the candidate trajectories based on a trajectory-evaluation metric determined using the associated cost function based on the cost terms and the weights”). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Hauler, Koopman, and Lapin as in Claim 4 above.
Claim 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauler (US20150246678A1) in view of Koopman (US20190056735A1) further in view of Lapin(US20210403034A1) and Ohashi(US20160137261A1).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Hauler and Koopman teaches The method according to claim 1.
Yet the combination of Hauler and Koopman do not explicitly teach wherein the checking unit performs the following checks:
a check whether an unintentional departure from the lane occurs;
a check whether a departure from the roadway occurs; and
a check whether an unintentional starting of the vehicle from a standstill occurs.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lapin teaches wherein the checking unit performs the following checks:
a check whether an unintentional departure from the lane occurs(Lapin: Para 20 “the vehicle system 210 may collect data related to other vehicles or agents in the surrounding environment including, for example, but not limited to, environment images, vehicle speeds, vehicle acceleration, vehicle moving paths, vehicle driving trajectories, locations, vehicle signal status (e.g., on-off state of turning signals), braking signal status, a distance to another vehicle, a relative speed to another vehicle, a distance to a pedestrian, a relative speed to a pedestrian, a distance to a traffic signal, a distance to an intersection, a distance to a road sign, a distance to curb, a relative position to a road line, positions of other traffic agents, a road layout, pedestrians, traffic status (e.g., number of nearby vehicles, number of pedestrians, traffic signals), time of day (e.g., morning rush hours, evening rush hours, non-busy hours), type of traffic (e.g., high speed moving traffic, accident events, slow moving traffic), locations (e.g., GPS coordination), road conditions (e.g., constructing zones, school zones, wet surfaces, ice surfaces), intersections, road signs (e.g., stop sign 160, road lines 142, cross walk), nearby objects (e.g., curb, light poles, billboard), buildings, weather conditions (e.g., raining, fog, sunny, hot weather, cold weather), etc.”; Para 28 “when the AV detects a lane boundary and a curb, the trajectory planner of the AV may need to take that lane boundary and curb as the driving constraints for generating the corresponding trajectories to navigate the vehicle. In particular embodiments, the generated driving constraints may be associated with a timestamp and may be used by the trajectory planner to generate the planned trajectories (during a cost function optimization process) for navigating the vehicle in accordance with this particular scenario”; Para 38 “each trajectory being evaluated may be associated with a number of parameters including, for example, but not limited to, a distance to a closest obstacle, a distance to another obstacle, a distance to a lead vehicle, a relative speed to a lead vehicle, a distance to a lane boundary, a difference between the trajectory speed and a speed limit, a maximum jerk, a maximum acceleration, a vehicle steering angle, a vehicle position, etc. The system may determine, for a candidate trajectory being evaluated, a cost based on a particular parameter (e.g., a distance to a closest obstacle, a distance to a lane boundary, a difference between trajectory speeds and a speed limit, a maximum jerk, a maximum acceleration)”);
a check whether a departure from the roadway occurs(Lapin: Para 20 “the vehicle system 210 may collect data related to other vehicles or agents in the surrounding environment including, for example, but not limited to, environment images, vehicle speeds, vehicle acceleration, vehicle moving paths, vehicle driving trajectories, locations, vehicle signal status (e.g., on-off state of turning signals), braking signal status, a distance to another vehicle, a relative speed to another vehicle, a distance to a pedestrian, a relative speed to a pedestrian, a distance to a traffic signal, a distance to an intersection, a distance to a road sign, a distance to curb, a relative position to a road line, positions of other traffic agents, a road layout, pedestrians, traffic status (e.g., number of nearby vehicles, number of pedestrians, traffic signals), time of day (e.g., morning rush hours, evening rush hours, non-busy hours), type of traffic (e.g., high speed moving traffic, accident events, slow moving traffic), locations (e.g., GPS coordination), road conditions (e.g., constructing zones, school zones, wet surfaces, ice surfaces), intersections, road signs (e.g., stop sign 160, road lines 142, cross walk), nearby objects (e.g., curb, light poles, billboard), buildings, weather conditions (e.g., raining, fog, sunny, hot weather, cold weather), etc.”; Para 28 “when the AV detects a lane boundary and a curb, the trajectory planner of the AV may need to take that lane boundary and curb as the driving constraints for generating the corresponding trajectories to navigate the vehicle. In particular embodiments, the generated driving constraints may be associated with a timestamp and may be used by the trajectory planner to generate the planned trajectories (during a cost function optimization process) for navigating the vehicle in accordance with this particular scenario”; Para 38 “each trajectory being evaluated may be associated with a number of parameters including, for example, but not limited to, a distance to a closest obstacle, a distance to another obstacle, a distance to a lead vehicle, a relative speed to a lead vehicle, a distance to a lane boundary, a difference between the trajectory speed and a speed limit, a maximum jerk, a maximum acceleration, a vehicle steering angle, a vehicle position, etc. The system may determine, for a candidate trajectory being evaluated, a cost based on a particular parameter (e.g., a distance to a closest obstacle, a distance to a lane boundary, a difference between trajectory speeds and a speed limit, a maximum jerk, a maximum acceleration)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of the combination of Hauler and Koopman with the feature of wherein the checking unit performs the following checks: a check whether an unintentional departure from the lane occurs; a check whether a departure from the roadway occurs disclosed by Lapin. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “the trajectory planner meets the validation criteria (e.g., meeting criteria for the safety metric and comfort metric) with the output trajectory matching human driving trajectories” (Lapin: Para 45).
Yet the combination of Hauler, Koopman, and Lapin do not explicitly teach a check whether an unintentional starting of the vehicle from a standstill occurs.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ohashi teaches a check whether an unintentional starting of the vehicle from a standstill occurs (Ohashi: Para 65 “the judgment controller 6 of some embodiments is structured so that the stopped state of the vehicle can be kept based on detections of the detection sensors (S3-S6). That is, when the detecting sensor S3 detects that a driver does not grasp the throttle grip Ga (or the grasping grip Gb), when the sensor S4 detects that a driver is not sitting on the seat 10, or when the sensors S5, S6 detect that the side stand 11 or main stand 12 are used, it is judged by the judgment controller 6 that the driver's demand is to keep the vehicle stopped state and thus the vehicle is kept stopped state based on the judgment”; Para 104 “the judgment controller 6 can change the state of vehicle to the stopped state based on at least one detection of the detection sensors (S3-S6), it is possible to keep the stopped state of vehicle by surely judging the driver's demand. Furthermore, according to the some embodiments, since the idle-neutral control is performed when the engine E is started from the idle-stop state without driver's operation, it is possible to surely inhibit or prevent unintentional start of vehicle in the absence of driver demand and therefore traffic safety can be improved”; i.e. stopped state of the vehicle can be kept based on detections of the detection sensors encompasses check whether an unintentional starting of the vehicle from a standstill occurs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of the combination of Hauler and Koopman with the feature of a check whether an unintentional starting of the vehicle from a standstill occurs disclosed by Ohashi. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “selectively perform the idle-stop or creep control corresponding to the driver's demand” (Ohashi: Para 20).
As per claim 17, it recites “A driver assistance system for a vehicle” having limitations similar to those of claim 7 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 15-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauler (US20150246678A1) in view of Koopman (US20190056735A1) further in view of King (US20200148201A1).
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Hauler and Koopman teaches The driver assistance system according to claim 12.
Yet the combination of Hauler and Koopman do not explicitly teach wherein the second trajectory planner is certified in accordance with a predetermined safety level, and the first trajectory planner is not certified in accordance with the predetermined safety level.
However, in the same field of endeavor, King teaches wherein the second trajectory planner is certified in accordance with a predetermined safety level, and the first trajectory planner is not certified in accordance with the predetermined safety level(King: Para 47 “the secondary system 108 may be designed to be less computationally burdensome and/or operate at a higher integrity level. For example, a processing pipeline of the secondary system 108 may be simpler by relying on less sensor data, include less complex pipeline components, include less pipeline components overall, output less data, and/or exclude and/or limit the use of machine learned models. In some instances, the secondary system 108 may be a “high-integrity” system by achieving stringent operating tolerances and/or have the ability to be inspected (verified). In examples, the secondary system 108 may have a higher level of reliability and/or verifiability than the primary system 106. For example, output of a sub-component of the secondary system 108 may be certified to operate with complete accuracy or near-complete accuracy (e.g., 99.99% of scenarios, or higher). In some examples, the secondary system 108 or components of the secondary system 108 may be referred to as a collision avoidance system (CAS). In some examples, the secondary system 108 may comprise an Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL) D certification”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify The driver assistance system of the combination of Hauler and Koopman with the feature of wherein the second trajectory planner is certified in accordance with a predetermined safety level, and the first trajectory planner is not certified in accordance with the predetermined safety level disclosed by King. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “The secondary system may operate independently of the primary system to enhance the safety of passengers in the vehicle and/or others in proximity to the vehicle” (King: Para 8).
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Hauler and Koopman teaches The driver assistance system according to claim 12, and King further teaches wherein the second trajectory planner is certified in accordance with ASIL Level B or higher, and the first trajectory planner is certified in accordance with ASIL QM level without being certified in accordance with ASIL Level B or higher (King: Fig. 1 Element 106, 116 and 108; Para 18 “the primary system 106 may analyze the sensor data 114 to localize the autonomous vehicle 102, detect an object around the autonomous vehicle 102, segment the sensor data 114, determine a classification of the object, predict an object track, generate a trajectory 116 for the autonomous vehicle 102, and so on”; Para 47 “the secondary system 108 may be designed to be less computationally burdensome and/or operate at a higher integrity level. For example, a processing pipeline of the secondary system 108 may be simpler by relying on less sensor data, include less complex pipeline components, include less pipeline components overall, output less data, and/or exclude and/or limit the use of machine learned models. In some instances, the secondary system 108 may be a “high-integrity” system by achieving stringent operating tolerances and/or have the ability to be inspected (verified). In examples, the secondary system 108 may have a higher level of reliability and/or verifiability than the primary system 106. For example, output of a sub-component of the secondary system 108 may be certified to operate with complete accuracy or near-complete accuracy (e.g., 99.99% of scenarios, or higher). In some examples, the secondary system 108 or components of the secondary system 108 may be referred to as a collision avoidance system (CAS). In some examples, the secondary system 108 may comprise an Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL) D certification”; i.e. the primary system 106 would have to meet the minimum standard for deployment in the vehicle(certified in accordance with ASIL QM level) while the secondary system 108 may comprise an Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL) D certification(certified in accordance with ASIL Level B or higher)). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Hauler, Koopman, and King as in Claim 15 above.
As per claim 18, it recites “A method for planning an at least partially automated driving process with a driver assistance system of a vehicle” having limitations similar to those of claim 16 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Joyce (US20180046182A1) disclosed A first computer including a processor is programmed to receive an indication of a failure mode in a vehicle and wirelessly transmit the indication of the failure mode to a remote server. The computer is further programmed to receive a revised route to a destination based at least in part on the failure mode and operate the vehicle along the revised route.
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.
/W.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
3/11/26