Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the independent claims overcome their prior art rejections and the rejections should be withdrawn.
As the Applicant has provided no details and merely conclusory statements alleging the patentability over the cited prior art of record, it is difficult to provide a detailed response. The independent claims have been rejected as explained in detail below using Oltmann (US 20210107520), Mercep (US 20200209848). The Examiner strongly encourages the Applicant to provide actual explanation and detailed arguments explaining why their claims are believed to overcome the prior art of record, rather than merely making conclusory statements.
As such, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the rejections of the dependent claims should be withdrawn.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent and dependent claim has been fully rejected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “80” representing the computing device as described in [0124].
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “320” as shown in Figure 3B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oltmann (US 20210107520), in view of Mercep et al. (US 20200209848).
In regards to claim 1, Oltmann teaches a system comprising: (Fig 1.)
a main vehicle computing platform; ([0023] either main control device HSG or ancillary control device NSG may be main vehicle computing platform.)
a secondary vehicle computing platform; ([0023] either main control device HSG or ancillary control device NSG may be secondary vehicle computing platform.)
one or more actuators; ([0023] drive actuator AA, steering actuator LA, braking actuator BA.) and
at least one processor; ([0037] main and ancillary control devices perform processing and therefore act as or include processors.) and
determine a failure of the main vehicle computing platform or the secondary vehicle computing platform; ([0025], [0029], [0032] error function of main control device may be determined.)
iterate through a vehicle safety response control level hierarchy to determine a vehicle safety response control level; ([0029], [0032] when an error function is determined to be present, the operating mode is switched from a regular operating mode to an emergency operating mode. This iterates at least through safety response control level hierarchy between the regular mode and the emergency mode selecting the regular mode in circumstances where no error is found and selecting the emergency mode in circumstances where an error is present.)
determine a set of vehicle safety response control commands corresponding to the vehicle safety response control level, wherein the determining of the set of vehicle safety response control commands comprises determining a complexity of the set of the vehicle safety response control commands, ([0032] when an error is found, the operating mode switches to emergency operating mode in which the ancillary control device takes over vehicle guidance by regulating the vehicle’s trajectory such that the vehicle executes the last valid emergency trajectory calculated by the main control device. This is a set of safety control commands associated with the emergency safety response control level. [0026], [0028] in the regular driving mode, which is when an error has not been determined, the main control device carries out trajectory regulation, generating a regular desired trajectory, according to received sensor information controlling drive and steering actuators, while the ancillary control devices regulates braking and continuously generates an emergency operation desired trajectory for anticipatory needs. This is a set of safety control commands associated with the regular driving mode. Each set of safety control commands has a different level of complexity as the emergency operating mode serves to execute only the previously determined last valid emergency trajectory and in the regular driving mode, the regular desired trajectory and emergency trajectory are both re-calculated and executed repeatedly.)
send the set of vehicle safety response control commands to the one or more actuators of the vehicle to initiate a safety response measure for the vehicle in response to the failure of the main vehicle computing platform or the secondary vehicle computing platform; and ([0026], [0028], [0032] when an error is not found the regular driving mode operates to execute the regular desired trajectory and when in the emergency operating mode when an error has been determined, executes the last valid emergency trajectory.)
cause the one or more actuators to initiate the safety response measure. ([0026], [0028], [0032] when an error is not found the regular driving mode operates to execute the regular desired trajectory and when in the emergency operating mode when an error has been determined, executes the last valid emergency trajectory, both which cause actuators to initiate safety response measures.)
Oltmann also teaches trajectories are generated including control operations along the trajectory, such as drive actuation control, which is throttle control; steering actuation control, which is steering; and braking actuation control, which is braking, and the vehicle is guided along the last valid trajectory is followed to an emergency stop position particularly including within the same lane ([0026], [0028], [0032]).
Oltmann does not teach:
at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions, wherein the at least one processor is configured to access the at least one memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to:
depending on whether first commands from the main vehicle computing platform conflict with second commands from the secondary vehicle platform or whether first results of sensor data processing by the main vehicle computing platform conflict with second results of sensor data processing by the secondary vehicle platform, and determining a set of vehicle safety response control commands further comprises, in response to determining that the first commands are inconsistent with the second commands, determining the set of vehicle safety response control commands from steering, throttling, and braking controls without lane changes and in response to determining that the first commands are consistent with the second commands, determining the set of vehicle safety response control commands as the first commands or the second commands;
However, Mercep teaches determining faults by comparing environmental models generated using sensors of the vehicle with another environmental model, such as an internally generated environmental model to particularly find sensor faults, determining where the environmental models differ or disagree ([0026], [0060]), where differing and disagreeing are conflicts and inconsistencies. Mercep further teaches determining faults of actuators by comparing how the vehicle responds to control signals with the vehicle’s status and the environmental model, where a fault is determined when the vehicle is found to have failed to respond as expected ([0062]). When a fault is determined, a response is output to alter functionality of the driving system, for example setting limits on speed and driving strategy ([0071]). These adjust driving complexity by limiting driving strategy based upon comparison and differences within sensor data from different module and vehicle actions with expected vehicle actions as determined by different modules. These operations are stored in memory for execution ([0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Oltmann, by incorporating the teachings of Mercep, such that the main control device or ancillary control device is given additional functionality of constructing an environment model and the other device is given additional functionality of storing or constructing an internally generated environmental model, where the environmental models are compared to determine if they differ or disagree, which is finding a conflict and inconsistency used to determine fault of a sensor which is linked to the main control device, and faults of actuators are determined by comparing how the vehicle responds to control signals with the vehicle’s status and the environmental model, where when a fault is determined, a response is output to alter functionality of the driving system by setting limits on speed and driving strategy, which adjusts complexity by limiting driving strategy based upon comparison, conflict, and inconsistency, and these operations are stored in memory for execution by the processor, further including when a conflict and inconsistency is determined within at least the operated and expected trajectories, the last valid trajectory is executed to cause the vehicle to travel to an emergency stop position including within the same lane by selectively operating drive, steering, and braking actuators and otherwise executing the trajectory as normal as in Oltmann.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Mercep, this allows for driver assistance with improved safety ([0004], [0005]).
In regards to claim 2, Mercep teaches when either an environmental model is inconsistent with an internal environmental model or when an actuator’s expected motion is inconsistent with the actual motion of the vehicle, determining a fault has occurred, and adjusting driving of the vehicle by limiting speed and driving strategy, which reduces the complexity of driving commands ([0026], [0060], [0062], [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Oltmann, as already modified by Mercep, by further incorporating the teachings of Mercep, such that when a fault is determined by determining inconsistency of data processing or outputs, the regular desired trajectory is speed limited and driving strategy limited, which reduces complexity of control commands based on determined inconsistencies.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Mercep in regards to claim 1.
In regards to claim 3, Oltmann, as modified by Mercep, teaches the system of claim 1.
Oltmann also teaches determining whether an error is present in a main computing platform ([0025], [0029], [0032]).
Mercep teaches when either an environmental model is inconsistent with an internal environmental model or when an actuator’s expected motion is inconsistent with the actual motion of the vehicle, determining a fault has occurred, and adjusting driving of the vehicle by limiting speed and driving strategy, which reduces the complexity of driving commands ([0026], [0060], [0062], [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Oltmann, as already modified by Mercep, by further incorporating the teachings of Mercep, such that when a fault is found by analyzing inconsistency between data processing of one of the computing devices, driving is adjusted by limiting speed and driving strategy, which reduces complexity of driving commands.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Mercep in regards to claim 1.
In regards to claim 4, Oltmann, as modified by Mercep, teaches the system of claim 3, wherein, in response to determining that the secondary vehicle computing platform is functional, determining the set of vehicle safety response control commands as the second commands. ([0026], [0028], [0032] when no error is determined, the vehicle operates in a regular mode in which the regular desired trajectory is output and followed.)
In regards to claim 5, Mercep teaches when either an environmental model is inconsistent with an internal environmental model or when an actuator’s expected motion is inconsistent with the actual motion of the vehicle, determining a fault has occurred, and adjusting driving of the vehicle by limiting speed and driving strategy, which reduces the complexity of driving commands ([0026], [0060], [0062], [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Oltmann, as already modified by Mercep, by further incorporating the teachings of Mercep, such that when a fault is determined by determining inconsistency of sensor data, the regular desired trajectory is speed limited and driving strategy limited, which reduces complexity of control commands based on determined inconsistencies.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Mercep in regards to claim 1.
In regards to claim 6, Oltmann, as modified by Mercep, teaches the system of claim 1.
Oltmann also teaches determining a regular desired trajectory and an emergency operation desired trajectory, where the trajectories are recalculated for each cyclical temporal distance ([0026], [0028], [0029], [0032]).
Mercep teaches determining whether the expected motion of the vehicle is inconsistent with the actual motion of the vehicle and determining fault if there is an inconsistency ([0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Oltmann, as already modified by Mercep, by further incorporating the teachings of Mercep, such that the expected motion for each temporal distance of each trajectory of Oltmann is checked against the actual motion of the vehicle, which synchronizes the current and expected trajectories, within a threshold temporal distance which is composed of both time and distance.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Mercep in regards to claim 1.
In regards to claim 7, Oltmann, as modified by Mercep, teaches the system of claim 6.
Oltmann also teaches trajectories may be determined to avoid obstacles, such that the obstacles are not on the paths of the regular desired trajectory and the emergency operation desired trajectory ([0026]-[0029], [0032]).
Mercep teaches determining whether the expected motion of the vehicle is inconsistent with the actual motion of the vehicle and determining fault if there is an inconsistency ([0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Oltmann, as already modified by Mercep, by further incorporating the teachings of Mercep, such that the expected motion for each temporal distance of each trajectory of Oltmann is checked against the actual motion of the vehicle, which synchronizes the current and expected trajectories at least when the planned trajectories avoid obstacles.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Mercep in regards to claim 1.
In regards to claim 8, Oltmann, as modified by Mercep, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to access the at least one memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to:
receive, at the at least one processor, sensor data from one or more sensors of the vehicle; ([0026] main control device receives surrounding information from sensors and [0031] ancillary control device receives inertial data from inertial sensor.)
augment, by the at least one processor, the set of vehicle safety response control commands using the sensor data to obtain a set of augmented vehicle safety response control commands; ([0026], [0028], [0029], [0031] in the regular control mode, the main control device continually determines and re-determines the regular desired trajectory based on sensor information and the ancillary control device performs further coordination with the main control device using the inertial sensor to operate brakes particularly, and an emergency operation trajectory is continually determined and re-determined. This augments the response commands by re-determining both the regular desired trajectory and the emergency operation trajectory, where operations are performed by the control devices which include or act as processors.) and
send, by the at least one processor, the set of augmented vehicle safety response control commands to the one or more actuators to enhance the safety response measure for the vehicle. ([0026], [0028], [0029], [0031] drive actuator, steering actuator, and braking actuator are operated according to commands from the main control device and ancillary control device, where the main control device and ancillary control device act as or include processors and the actuation is performed to improve safety.)
In regards to claim 9, Oltmann, as modified by Mercep, teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more sensors comprise an inertial sensor. ([0031] inertial sensor determines inertial state of the vehicle.)
In regards to claim 10, Oltmann teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the sensor data comprises first sensor data received from the inertial sensor, and wherein augmenting the set of vehicle safety response control commands comprises: ([0031] inertial sensor determines inertial state of the vehicle.)
determining, by the at least one processor, a current location of the vehicle using the first sensor data; ([0031], [0035] localization is performed using dead reckoning, where the information for dead reckoning is acquired from at least the inertial sensor.)
determining, by the at least one processor and based at least in part on planned vehicle trajectory data, that the current location of the vehicle deviates from an expected location of the vehicle; ([0034] trajectory regulation includes determining the deviation between the actual position of the vehicle and the desired position of the vehicle from the desired trajectories, where desired trajectory provides expected position of vehicle over time.) and
modifying, by the one or more processors, a vehicle steering control command of the set of vehicle safety response control commands to obtain an augmented vehicle steering control command of the set of augmented vehicle safety response control commands, wherein the augmented vehicle steering control command, when implemented, causes the one or more actuators to adjust a steering control for the vehicle to reduce the deviation between the current location of the vehicle and the expected location of the vehicle. ([0034] drive, steering, and brake actuators are operated based on the deviation between the actual position of the vehicle and the desired position of the vehicle from the trajectories, particularly to minimize the deviation. These are performed by either or both of the main control device and the ancillary control device.)
In regards to claim 11, Oltmann, as modified by Mercep, teaches the system of claim 8.
determining, by the at least one processor and using the first sensor data, that an obstacle is present along a planned trajectory of the vehicle; ([0026]-[0029], [0031] sensor data is analyzed to determine that an obstacle is present along the trajectories of the vehicle and the trajectories are adjusted to avoid the obstacle.) and
modifying, by the one or more processors, one or more control commands of the set of vehicle safety response control commands to obtain one or more augmented vehicle safety response control commands of the set of augmented vehicle safety response control commands, wherein the one or more augmented vehicle safety response control commands, when implemented, cause the one or more actuators to adjust at least one of a steering control or a braking control for the vehicle to cause the vehicle to deviate from the planned trajectory in order to avoid the obstacle. ([0026]-[0029], [0031] sensor data is analyzed to determine that an obstacle is present along the trajectories of the vehicle and the trajectories are adjusted to avoid the obstacle. The vehicle is then controlled to follow the trajectory by actuating drive actuators, steering actuators, and brake actuators.)
Mercep also teaches a radar sensor to observe the environment around the own vehicle including obstacles ([0015], [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Oltmann, as already modified by Mercep, by further incorporating the teachings of Mercep, such that the sensor system includes radar sensors which monitor the environment around the own vehicle including objects.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Mercep in regards to claim 1.
In regards to claim 14, Oltmann teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: ([0006]).
receiving, by one or more processors associated with a vehicle, planned vehicle trajectory data from a vehicle computing platform of the vehicle, the planned vehicle trajectory data indicating a planned trajectory of the vehicle for a period of time subsequent to a time of receipt of the planned vehicle trajectory data; ([0026], [0029], [0032] in regular mode, the main control device determines a regular desired trajectory and an emergency operational desired trajectory for the vehicle to follow based on received sensor information. In an emergency operating mode the ancillary control device executes the last valid emergency operational desired trajectory. Both the main control device and the ancillary control device either include or serve as processors which receive planned trajectory data either from themselves or from the main control device.)
determining, by the one or more processors, that the vehicle computing platform has failed; ([0025], [0029], [0032] error function of main control device may be determined, where the operation is performed by either or a combination of the main control device and the ancillary control device.)
determining, by the one or more processors, a set of vehicle safety response control commands based at least in part on the planned vehicle trajectory data, ([0032] when an error is found, the operating mode switches to emergency operating mode in which the ancillary control device takes over vehicle guidance by regulating the vehicle’s trajectory such that the vehicle executes the last valid emergency trajectory calculated by the main control device. This is a set of safety control commands associated with the emergency safety response control level. [0026], [0028] in the regular driving mode, which is when an error has not been determined, the main control device carries out trajectory regulation, generating a regular desired trajectory, according to received sensor information controlling drive and steering actuators, while the ancillary control devices regulates braking and continuously generates an emergency operation desired trajectory for anticipatory needs. This is a set of safety control commands associated with the regular driving mode.) and
sending, by the one or more processors, the set of vehicle safety response control commands to one or more actuators of the vehicle to initiate a safety response measure for the vehicle in response to failure of the vehicle computing platform; ([0028], [0032] in the regular driving mode the main control device causes the driving actuator and steering actuator to be directly operated and the ancillary control device causes the braking actuator to be operated according to the regular desired trajectory, and in the emergency operation mode the ancillary control device operates actuators to follow the emergency operational desired trajectory.)
during a period of time in which the safety response measure is undertaken, continuously receiving over time, at the one or more processors, sensor data from one or more sensors of the vehicle, the sensor data comprising indicating actual vehicle trajectory data; ([0026], [0031] sensor data is received by main control device and ancillary control device to continuously plan and re-plan regular and emergency operational desired trajectories over cyclical temporal distances. This receives sensor data before, during, and after executing any individual trajectory or portion of trajectory.)
updating the set of vehicle safety response control commands based on any deviation between the actual vehicle trajectory data and the planned vehicle trajectory data; ([0034] trajectory regulation includes determining the deviation between the actual position of the vehicle and the desired position of the vehicle from the desired trajectories, where desired trajectory provides expected position of vehicle over time. Drive, steering, and brake actuators are operated based on the deviation between the actual position of the vehicle and the desired position of the vehicle from the trajectories, particularly to minimize the deviation. This re-plans and updates the trajectories based on the determined deviation.)
transmitting the updated set of vehicle safety response control commands to the one or more actuators; ([0034] drive, steering, and brake actuators are operated based on deviation between actual position of the vehicle and the desired position of the vehicle to minimize the deviation, which is a transmission of the updated trajectory to the actuators.) and
causing the one or more actuators to initiate the safety response measure. ([0026], [0028], [0032] when an error is not found the regular driving mode operates to execute the regular desired trajectory and when in the emergency operating mode when an error has been determined, executes the last valid emergency trajectory, both which cause actuators to initiate safety response measures.)
Oltmann also teaches trajectories are generated including control operations along the trajectory, such as drive actuation control, which is throttle control; steering actuation control, which is steering; and braking actuation control, which is braking, and the vehicle is guided along the last valid trajectory is followed to an emergency stop position particularly including within the same lane ([0026], [0028], [0032]).
Oltmann does not teach:
determining a set of vehicle safety response control commands comprises determining a complexity of the set of the vehicle safety response control commands depending on whether first commands from the main vehicle computing platform conflict with second commands from the secondary vehicle platform or whether first results of sensor data processing by the main vehicle computing platform conflict with second results of sensor data processing by the secondary vehicle platform, and in response to determining that the first commands are inconsistent with the second commands, determining the set of vehicle safety response control commands from steering, throttling, and braking controls without lane changes: and in response to determining that the first commands are consistent with the second commands, determining the set of vehicle safety response control commands as the first commands or the second commands;
However, Mercep teaches determining faults by comparing environmental models generated using sensors of the vehicle with another environmental model, such as an internally generated environmental model to particularly find sensor faults, determining where the environmental models differ or disagree ([0026], [0060]), where differing and disagreeing are conflicts and inconsistencies. Mercep further teaches determining faults of actuators by comparing how the vehicle responds to control signals with the vehicle’s status and the environmental model, where a fault is determined when the vehicle is found to have failed to respond as expected ([0062]). When a fault is determined, a response is output to alter functionality of the driving system, for example setting limits on speed and driving strategy ([0071]). These adjust driving complexity by limiting driving strategy based upon comparison and differences within sensor data from different module and vehicle actions with expected vehicle actions as determined by different modules.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control method of Oltmann, by incorporating the teachings of Mercep, such that the main control device or ancillary control device is given additional functionality of constructing an environment model and the other device is given additional functionality of storing or constructing an internally generated environmental model, where the environmental models are compared to determine if they differ or disagree, which is finding a conflict and inconsistency used to determine fault of a sensor which is linked to the main control device, and faults of actuators are determined by comparing how the vehicle responds to control signals with the vehicle’s status and the environmental model, where when a fault is determined, a response is output to alter functionality of the driving system by setting limits on speed and driving strategy, which adjusts complexity by limiting driving strategy based upon comparison, conflict, and inconsistency, further including when a conflict and inconsistency is determined within at least the operated and expected trajectories, the last valid trajectory is executed to cause the vehicle to travel to an emergency stop position including within the same lane by selectively operating drive, steering, and braking actuators and otherwise executing the trajectory as normal as in Oltmann.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Mercep, this allows for driver assistance with improved safety ([0004], [0005]).
In regards to claim 15, Oltmann, as modified by Mercep, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein the continuously receiving over time the sensor data comprises continuously receiving the sensor data from an inertial sensor. ([0031] inertial sensor determines inertial state of the vehicle, which must be done continuously to be used.)
In regards to claim 16, Oltmann, as modified by Mercep teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein the sensor data comprises angular rate and angular orientation. ([0031] yaw rate is determined. [0037] angle error between current heading and expected heading of vehicle is determined, which requires sensing or determining from sensor data the current heading of the vehicle.)
In regards to claim 17, Oltmann, as modified by Mercep teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein the determining a set of vehicle safety response control commands comprises determining a complexity of the set of the vehicle safety response control commands. ([0032] when an error is found, the operating mode switches to emergency operating mode in which the ancillary control device takes over vehicle guidance by regulating the vehicle’s trajectory such that the vehicle executes the last valid emergency trajectory calculated by the main control device. This is a set of safety control commands associated with the emergency safety response control level. [0026], [0028] in the regular driving mode, which is when an error has not been determined, the main control device carries out trajectory regulation, generating a regular desired trajectory, according to received sensor information controlling drive and steering actuators, while the ancillary control devices regulates braking and continuously generates an emergency operation desired trajectory for anticipatory needs. This is a set of safety control commands associated with the regular driving mode. Each set of safety control commands has a different level of complexity as the emergency operating mode serves to execute only the previously determined last valid emergency trajectory and in the regular driving mode, the regular desired trajectory and emergency trajectory are both re-calculated and executed repeatedly.)
Mercep teaches determining faults by comparing environmental models generated using sensors of the vehicle with another environmental model, such as an internally generated environmental model to particularly find sensor faults, determining where the environmental models differ or disagree ([0026], [0060]), where differing and disagreeing are conflicts. Mercep further teaches determining faults of actuators by comparing how the vehicle responds to control signals with the vehicle’s status and the environmental model, where a fault is determined when the vehicle is found to have failed to respond as expected ([0062]). When a fault is determined, a response is output to alter functionality of the driving system, for example setting limits on speed and driving strategy ([0071]). These adjust driving complexity by limiting driving strategy based upon comparison and differences within sensor data from different module and vehicle actions with expected vehicle actions as determined by different modules.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control method of Oltmann, as already modified by Mercep, by further incorporating the teachings of Mercep, such that the main control device or ancillary control device is given additional functionality of constructing an environment model and the other device is given additional functionality of storing or constructing an internally generated environmental model, where the environmental models are compared to determine if they differ or disagree, which is finding a conflict used to determine fault of a sensor which is linked to the main control device, and faults of actuators are determined by comparing how the vehicle responds to control signals with the vehicle’s status and the environmental model, where when a fault is determined, a response is output to alter functionality of the driving system by setting limits on speed and driving strategy, which adjusts complexity by limiting driving strategy based upon comparison and conflict.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Mercep in regards to claim 1.
In regards to claim 18, Oltmann, as modified by Mercep, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 17.
Claim 18 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 2 above, therefore claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
In regards to claim 19, Oltmann, as modified by Mercep, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 17.
Claim 19 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 3 above, therefore claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
In regards to claim 20, Oltmann, as modified by Mercep, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 17.
Claim 20 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 5 above, therefore claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oltmann, in view of Mercep, in further view of Clar et al. (US 9481977).
In regards to claim 12, Oltmann, as modified by Mercep, teaches the system of claim 1.
Oltmann, as modified by Mercep, does not teach: wherein the determining of the failure is based on cumulative periods of lack of connectivity between the main vehicle computing platform or the secondary vehicle computing platform and the at least one processor.
However, Clar teaches determining that appropriate communication signals have been lacking for a threshold period of time, and characterizing this as a communication error and failure (Col 9 lines 25-33). This threshold period of time includes cumulative periods of lack of connectivity of at least each individual second, millisecond, or other unit in which communication signals are not properly received.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Oltmann, as modified by Mercep, by incorporating the teachings of Clar such that failure is determined at least in part by assessing that communication signals have been lacking for a threshold period of time.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Clar, this allows for improving safety and efficiency of autonomous operation (Col 1 lines 41-43).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oltmann, in view of Mercep, in further view of Poletto et al. (US 20160094022).
In regards to claim 13, Oltmann, as modified by Mercep, teaches the system of claim 1.
Oltmann, as modified by Mercep, does not teach: wherein the determining of the failure comprises determining a potential failure based on a clock frequency of the main vehicle computing platform or the secondary vehicle computing platform.
However, Poletto teaches determining particular clock frequency signals are indicative of failure of a monitored device (Claim 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Oltmann, as already modified by Mercep, by incorporating the teachings of Poletto, such that the main and ancillary control devices of Oltmann are monitored and failure of either of these control devices is indicated through clock frequency.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Poletto, this allows for improved fail-safe operations ([0006], [0007]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Olson et al. (US 20210046923) teaches checking consistency between two states or trajectories for a vehicle.
Olson et al. (US 20210048817) teaches checking consistency between two states or trajectories for a vehicle.
Kazemi et al. (US 20190066506) teaches controls form different vehicle systems may outrank each other when they conflict.
Rasmussen et al. (US 20180239349) teaches controls from different operators may be prioritized for a vehicle.
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 MATTHIAS S WEISFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-7258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at Ramya.Burgess@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights