DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-14, and 17-20 filed on 11/25/2025 are presently examined. Claims 2, 5, 7-8, 15-16, and 21 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 14, and 17 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 USC 112(f) interpretation, the interpretation is unaddressed in Applicant’s remarks and amendments, and therefore will remain.
Regarding 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues the amendments filed 11/25/2025 overcome the prior art. However, the ground of the rejection has changed due to the amendment changing the scope of the invention. New reference Narang is included in the 103 rejection. The combination of Dingli, Do, and Costa in the 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-11, 13, 14, and 17-19 is maintained in addition to new reference Narang.
In regards to the amendments that relate to Dingli, Costa, and new reference Narang, Dingli teaches the first trajectory determined in accordance with a first process associated with a nominal operation of the autonomous vehicle, the failure of the first trajectory being related to a first detection of whether one or more of a sensor or a component associated with the autonomous vehicle fail, he alternative trajectory being determined in accordance with a second process associated with a degraded operation of the autonomous vehicle, the second trajectory determined in accordance with the first process, and finally, the failure of the second trajectory being related to a second detection of whether the one or more of the sensor or the component of the autonomous vehicle fail.
Costa teaches the second probability being less than or equal to a second threshold, an occurrence of a second triggering event, wherein the second threshold is lower than the first threshold, and wherein the second threshold is greater than zero.
New reference Narang teaches the autonomous vehicle is controlled to continue following the alternative trajectory if the second probability is between the first threshold and the second threshold.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first component” and “second component” in claims 1, 6, 11, 12, 14, 19, and 20. Applicant describes the components in [0046] “Computing device(s) 110 may comprise a memory 112 storing a perception component 114, a planning component 116, one or more controller 138, and/or a trajectory validation system 118.” Where the computing devices are displayed in [FIG. 6], first computing device 604 and second computing device 618.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-11, 13, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dingli et al. (US 11673565 B1), in view of Do et al. (US 20250083666 A1), Costa et al. (US 20210053558 A1), and Narang et al. (US 20220236737 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dingli, Do, Costa, and Narang respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 14, Dingli discloses A system comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising ([column 2, lines 48-50] “The vehicle computer may include one or more processors and a computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors” performs the method described in the invention.):
transmitting, from a first component, a first trajectory for an autonomous vehicle to follow, the first trajectory determined in accordance with a first process associated with a nominal operation of the autonomous vehicle ([column 15, lines 45-49] “transmitting, by the first processor 550 of the vehicle computer 500 via a safety processor 560 of the vehicle computer 500, the first set of commands to one or more actuators of the vehicle for the vehicle to follow the first trajectory.”);
determining, based on the occurrence of the first triggering event, to control the autonomous vehicle based at least in part on an alternative trajectory configured to cause the autonomous vehicle to one or more of slow down or stop, the alternative trajectory being determined in accordance with a second process associated with a degraded operation of the autonomous vehicle ([column 6, lines 8-13] “When a predetermined condition is met (e.g., a fault, a latency or an anomaly is detected), the vehicle may be controlled to follow the second trajectory instead of the first trajectory. According to various embodiments, the second trajectory may bring the vehicle to a full and safe stop within a predetermined amount of time.”);
controlling the autonomous vehicle in accordance with the alternative trajectory ([column 15, lines 61-64] “providing, by the safety processor 560 of the vehicle computer 500, the second set of commands to the vehicle for the vehicle to follow the second trajectory.”);
transmitting, to the first component, an indication that the autonomous vehicle is following the alternative trajectory ([column 8, lines 53-56] “The control module 116 may provide the second set of commands to the vehicle for the vehicle to follow the second trajectory 304 (e.g., the fail-safe trajectory) at a second time 330 after the first time 320.”);
determining, by the first component and based at least in part on a state of the autonomous vehicle along the alternative trajectory, a second trajectory for the autonomous vehicle to follow, the second trajectory determined in accordance with the first process ([column 18, lines 5-9] “when updated data associated with the first trajectory is received at a third time before a fourth time after the second time: controlling the vehicle to follow an updated first trajectory instead of the second trajectory” where Dingli’s “first trajectory” is the first trajectory in claim 1, and Dingli’s “second trajectory” is the alternative trajectory in claim 1, and finally Dingli’s “updated first trajectory” is the second trajectory in claim 1.);
transmitting the second trajectory to the second component ([column 9, lines 42-50] “a valid trajectory update 352 is received from the planner module 114 or the original fault is cleared at a third time 354 within the recovery detection interval 335 (e.g. before the fourth time 340 and after the second time 330). In this case, the control module 116 controls the vehicle to follow an updated regular trajectory 356 (e.g., updated first trajectory) instead of the fail-safe trajectory 304. The updated first trajectory may be generated by the planner module 114 of the vehicle computer.”).
Dingli discloses determining, by a second component, a fault, missing input, or anomaly in the vehicle; determining by the second component and based on the detection of a fault, missing input, or anomaly, an occurrence of a triggering event, the failure of the first trajectory being related to a first detection of whether one or more of a sensor or a component associated with the autonomous vehicle fail ([column 10, lines 53-56] “determining, by the safety processor 560 of the vehicle computer 500, that a predetermined condition occurred for terminating the first trajectory” [column 15, lines 57-60] “the safety processor 560 may detect a faulty state, a missing input (e.g., a valid trajectory update), or an anomaly in the functioning of the vehicle and/or the vehicle computer.”).
Dingli fails to explicitly disclose determining, by a second component, a first probability associated with failure of the first trajectory; determining by the second component and based on the first probability exceeding a first threshold, an occurrence of a first triggering event.
However, Do teaches determining, a first probability associated with failure of the first trajectory; determining based on the first probability exceeding a first threshold, an occurrence of a first triggering event. ([0163] “whether there is a risk that the motor vehicle 100 collides with any obstacle if it follows the initial trajectory T0.” [0166] “The first condition is that a risk of collision exists. The computer herein considers that there is a risk of collision if the probability of collision calculated for at least one of the objects detected (hereinafter called the “obstacle”) exceeds a predetermined risk threshold.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Dingli and incorporate the teachings of Do. One would be motivated with a reasonable expectation of success to determine a threshold risk value of collision with nearby objects to trigger an alternative trajectory in order to prevent injury (Do [0020-0022] "if the risk of colliding with the other obstacle exceeds a risk threshold … determining a second new trajectory allowing minimizing the risk of colliding with each obstacle causing a serious injury, and controlling said control actuator to follow said second new trajectory.).
Dingli discloses determining, by the second component, an achievability associated with the second trajectory ([column 9, lines 42-49] “FIG. 3B, a valid trajectory update 352 is received … controls the vehicle to follow an updated regular trajectory 356 (e.g., updated first trajectory) instead of the fail-safe trajectory 304.” [column 9 line 66 through column 10 line 9] “prior to switching to the updated regular trajectory 356, the control module may also ensure that the valid trajectory update 352 results in an updated regular trajectory 356 that is achievable.”).
Dingli discloses the failure of the second trajectory being related to a second detection of whether the one or more sensor or the component of the autonomous vehicle fail ([column 8, lines 57-64] “if a valid updated trajectory is not received from the planner module 114 or the original fault is not cleared within the recovery detection interval 335, at the fourth time 340 (e.g., the end of the recovery detection interval 335), the system generates an alert 316 while continuing to provide the second set of commands to the vehicle for the vehicle to continue following the fail-safe trajectory 304.”).
Dingli fails to disclose determining a second probability associated with failure of the second trajectory.
However, Costa teaches determining a second probability associated with failure of the second trajectory ([FIGs 5A and 5B] note that the last step in FIG. 5B is 530 which is return to step 504. The process is cyclical. A vehicle under a first trajectory analyzes objects in the environment for intersecting trajectories (steps 506-510). If an alternative trajectory like an emergency maneuver in step 526 is later performed, the process repeats according to step 530 and a new trajectory generated an analyzed. It is then determined whether this new trajectory will intersect with other object trajectories, and if it does, a time to collision. [0025] “A determination is made that there is an undesirable level of collision risk when the collision time is equal to or less than the threshold time value.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Dingli and incorporate the teachings of Costa. One would be motivated with a reasonable expectation of success to cyclically evaluate trajectories with collision risk in order to provide safe trajectories to the vehicle and performing emergency maneuvers when necessary (Costa [0029] “present solution also explicitly deviates from optimal behavior (in most-likely-case by the minimal steering/braking modification needed to keep the AV safe, and explicitly allows for an accelerate-and-veer maneuver if such a maneuver is necessary to avoid a collision.”).
Dingli discloses determining, by the second component and based on the second achievability of the updated regular trajectory, an occurrence of a second triggering event ([column 10, lines 3-9] “prior to switching to the updated regular trajectory 356, the control module may also ensure that a speed associated with an initial time of the updated regular trajectory 356 is within a speed offset threshold 310, which is equal to a difference of the vehicle speed on the first trajectory and the vehicle speed on the second trajectory at the fourth time 340.” Achievable-ness is similar in a way to probability of failure, and the anomalies and component failures which trigger alternative trajectories are also similar in a way to probabilities of failure, but not explicitly. Achievable-ness of an updated regular trajectory seems more benign than an outright system failure triggering a fail-safe trajectory, which in a way is similar to high and low thresholds, but again not explicitly.).
Dingli fails to disclose determining, by the second component and based on the second probability being less than or equal to a second threshold, an occurrence of a second triggering event, wherein the second threshold is lower than the first threshold, and wherein the second threshold is greater than zero.
However, Costa teaches determining, based on the second probability being less than or equal to a second threshold, an occurrence of a second triggering event, wherein the second threshold is lower than the first threshold, and wherein the second threshold is greater than zero ([FIGs 5A and 5B] note that the last step in FIG. 5B is 530 which is return to step 504. The process is cyclical. A vehicle under a first trajectory later determines an object will collide with the vehicle with a time to collision less than or equal to a threshold (step 516), and at step 524 determines the collision cannot be avoided (high risk threshold). The vehicle undergoes an alternative emergency trajectory and will repeat the process. The vehicle generates possible trajectories and analyzes objects in the environment for any intersecting trajectories (steps 506-510). If the trajectories intersect but the time to collision is greater than a threshold (step 516) it uses the generated trajectory and cycles back to step 504. This represents a second probability of trajectory failure which is lower than the emergency trajectory that cannot avoid collision but is still higher than zero.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Dingli and incorporate the teachings of Costa. One would be motivated with a reasonable expectation of success to cyclically evaluate trajectories with multiple levels collision risk analyzed in order to provide safe trajectories to the vehicle and performing emergency maneuvers when necessary (Costa [0029] “present solution also explicitly deviates from optimal behavior (in most-likely-case by the minimal steering/braking modification needed to keep the AV safe, and explicitly allows for an accelerate-and-veer maneuver if such a maneuver is necessary to avoid a collision.”).
Dingli teaches controlling the autonomous vehicle in accordance with the second trajectory based at least in part on an absence of the triggering event ([column 2, lines 35-40] “The method may also include when updated data associated with the first trajectory is received at a third time before a fourth time after the second time: controlling, by the control module of the vehicle computer, the vehicle to follow an updated first trajectory instead of the second trajectory.”).
Dingli fails to explicitly disclose based on the occurrence of the second triggering event, controlling the autonomous vehicle in accordance with the second trajectory to return to nominal operation.
However, Costa teaches based on the occurrence of the second triggering event, controlling the autonomous vehicle in accordance with the second trajectory to return to nominal operation ([FIGs 5A and 5B] note that the last step in FIG. 5B is 530 which is return to step 504. The process is cyclical. A vehicle under a first trajectory later determines an object will collide with the vehicle with a time to collision less than or equal to a threshold (step 516), and at step 524 determines the collision cannot be avoided (high risk threshold). The vehicle undergoes an alternative emergency trajectory and will repeat the process. The vehicle generates possible trajectories and analyzes objects in the environment for any intersecting trajectories (steps 506-510). If the trajectories intersect but the time to collision is greater than a threshold (step 516) it uses the generated trajectory and cycles back to step 504. This represents a second probability of trajectory failure which is lower than the emergency trajectory that cannot avoid collision but is still higher than zero. Let’s say the first threshold is 1 second and the second threshold is 5 seconds.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dingli with Costa’s teaching of a cyclical risk assessment of trajectories. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to cyclically analyze the risk of the next trajectory in order to control the vehicle according to a trajectory appropriate for the risk level (Costa [0029] “The present solution also explicitly deviates from optimal behavior (in most-likely-case by the minimal steering/braking modification needed to keep the AV safe, and explicitly allows for an accelerate-and-veer maneuver if such a maneuver is necessary to avoid a collision. The present solution additionally allows generation and execution of AV plans that will collide with a worst-case predicted behavior from another mover, as long as a determination is made that there remains time to react safely to the worst-case behavior, should the event occur. This ability to selectively plan and execute a trajectory that collides with a worst-case predicted behavior from another actor, while still ensuring the AV is in a safe state, is key to preventing overly hesitant AV behavior.”)
Dingli fails to disclose the autonomous vehicle is controlled to continue following the alternative trajectory if the second probability is between the first threshold and the second threshold.
However, Narang teaches the autonomous vehicle is controlled to continue following the alternative trajectory if the second probability is between the first threshold and the second threshold ([0188] “the set of thresholds includes a set of upper thresholds wherein a fallback planner/emergency planner is triggered if the uncertainty (e.g., probability of out-of-distribution, aleatoric uncertainty, epistemic uncertainty, total variance, etc.) exceeds the threshold(s), further preferably a set of multiple upper thresholds, wherein a fallback response is triggered for the lower upper threshold (e.g., T), such as a programmed fallback trajectory, and wherein a second response is triggered for the higher upper threshold, such as implementing a minimum risk world representation with the emergency planner. In additional or alternative variations, the second response is implemented in response to a programmed fallback trajectory having an uncertainty (e.g., epistemic uncertainty, aleatoric uncertainty, total variance, other uncertainty, etc.) above a predetermined threshold.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dingli with Narang’s teaching of fallback and emergency maneuvers having differing upper uncertainty thresholds and maintaining the emergency maneuver until the uncertainty falls below the lower of the upper uncertainty thresholds. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to use the upper threshold pair in the determination between emergency and fallback maneuvers in order to ensure the vehicle navigates cautiously with a safe and efficient path (Narang [0063] “rather than using a trajectory generated by the learned model(s), the system and method can divert to the fallback motion planner to navigate cautiously through the environment and output a safe and efficient path from the current state to the next goal state.”).
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 17, Dingli discloses The system of claim 1, wherein: the first triggering event represents a detected failure of a subsystem associated with the autonomous vehicle ([column 13, lines 17-22] “the vehicle system response to a major or critical fault … a fault with a critical component of the vehicle system may require the vehicle to stop in lane or pull over to the side of the road.” [column 15, lines 57-60] “the safety processor 560 may detect a faulty state, a missing input (e.g., a valid trajectory update), or an anomaly in the functioning of the vehicle and/or the vehicle computer.”).
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 18, Dingli discloses The system of claim 1, wherein controlling the autonomous vehicle in accordance with the second trajectory is based at least in part on determining that a threshold amount of time has passed since the autonomous vehicle was first controlled by the alternative trajectory ([column 2, lines 8-11] “a recovery detection interval during which an updated regular trajectory may be generated and followed instead of the fail-safe trajectory if a valid trajectory update is received.” [FIG. 4] steps 410 and 412).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Dingli discloses The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 6, the operations further comprising:
determining, by the first component, that no indications related to the second trajectory have been received from the second component (Applicant describes “indication” in specification at least in paragraph [0028] “by transmitting the triggering event indication to the first component, the system enables a coordinated response between the two components. This approach may ensure that the first component is informed of the triggering event and can adjust its trajectory planning accordingly, taking into account the state of the vehicle along the alternative trajectory.” For claims 11 and 19, under broadest reasonable interpretation, indication is interpreted to be indicating as to whether or not a fault trigger event has occurred for the trajectory. In this case, it is indicating whether a fault has occurred in a determined modified/updated first trajectory. Dingli discloses in [column 9, lines 27-30] “recovering from the fail-safe trajectory when a valid updated trajectory is received from the planner module 114 or the original fault is cleared within the recovery detection interval 335.” The main stack (first component) in this case receives no indications (valid trajectory, no faults) related to the modified/updated trajectory are received from the safety processor (second component));
determining, by the first component, a third trajectory based at least in part on a second state of the vehicle along the second trajectory ([column 9, lines 30-34] “Once the fail-safe trajectory is triggered, receipt of a trajectory update within the recovery detection interval will trigger the system to return to normal operation following a modified/updated version of the first trajectory.” After completing the modified/updated first trajectory, which is analogous to Applicant’s second trajectory, the system returns to normal operation. Within normal operation, [column 2, lines 20-21] “the first trajectory and the second trajectory are updated a plurality of times in one second.” The process is cyclical. The system creates a new “first” trajectory (third trajectory) based on the modified/updated first trajectory previously generated and controlled.); and
transmitting, from the first component to the second component, the third trajectory ([See at least FIG. 5A] all main stack determination (first component) are sent through safety processor (second component).).
Regarding claim 13, Dingli discloses The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 6, wherein the alternative trajectory is configured to cause the vehicle to one or more of slow down or stop ([column 6, lines 8-13] “When a predetermined condition is met (e.g., a fault, a latency or an anomaly is detected), the vehicle may be controlled to follow the second trajectory instead of the first trajectory. According to various embodiments, the second trajectory may bring the vehicle to a full and safe stop within a predetermined amount of time.”).
Claim(s) 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dingli in view of Do, Costa, and Narang, further in view of Olson et al. (US 20210046926 A1), hereafter Olson.
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Dingli discloses The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 6, the operations further comprising:
transmitting, from the second component to the first component, a second indication that the vehicle is following the alternative trajectory ([column 8, lines 57-64] “if a valid updated trajectory is not received from the planner module 114 or the original fault is not cleared within the recovery detection interval 335, at the fourth time 340 (e.g., the end of the recovery detection interval 335), the system generates an alert 316 while continuing to provide the second set of commands to the vehicle for the vehicle to continue following the fail-safe trajectory 304.”);
determining, by the second component, a third trajectory based at least in part on a second state of the vehicle along the alternative trajectory ([FIG. 6B] trajectory 612, based off previous fail-safe trajectory. The trajectory 612 is a third trajectory determined while traveling on the alternative trajectory. This trajectory is determined by the second component, safety processor.); and
transmitting, from the first component to the second component, the third trajectory ([See at least FIG. 5A] all main stack determination (first component) are sent through safety processor (second component).).
Dingli discloses for claim 11 that the first component determines a third trajectory based on a second trajectory, and for claim 12 that the second component determines a third trajectory based on the alternative trajectory, but not explicitly determining, by the first component, a third trajectory based at least in part on a second state of the vehicle along the alternative trajectory.
Dingli teaches the second component determines a third trajectory based on the alternative trajectory, but not explicitly that the first component determines said third trajectory.
However, Olson teaches determining, by the first component, a third trajectory based at least in part on a second state of the vehicle along the alternative trajectory ([0089] “At operation 604, the TMP 222 may receive the trajectories from the trajectory planner AI 212.” Where trajectory planner AI 212 is the first component and TMP 222 is the second component. [See FIG. 2] they are in separate systems. [0033] “it might be that the first trajectory is a trajectory that is used, unless there is some error found with the first trajectory and the second trajectory is a contingent trajectory that would be used in that case.” [0125] “the first and second alternative trajectories may be obtained from a trajectory planner AI 212” Alternative trajectories are also the contingent trajectories. [0103] “the TMP determines that the nominal trajectory is not valid, or it is not collision-free, … it checks a received first contingent trajectory for validity and collisions. If the first contingent trajectory is both valid and collision-free, the TMP moves to State G, executes that first contingent trajectory” Here the first trajectory is not used, a first alternative trajectory is attempted. [0104] “if the TMP determines that the first contingent trajectory is not valid, the TMP transitions to State C and tries a second contingent trajectory” This second contingent trajectory is a third trajectory based on the state of the vehicle along the previously attempted first contingent/alternative trajectory.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Dingli and incorporate the teachings of Olson in order to improve safety while driving. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to determine and execute a hierarchy of contingent/alternative trajectories by validating whether each trajectory is usable until a safe one is determined (Olson [0049] “a number of validation checks 120 on the primary and secondary trajectories 110, 112 to ensure that the chosen trajectory is safe and does not result in abrupt movement or discomfort to a passenger of the autonomous vehicle 102.” [0050] “trajectories may be validated based on the current operating conditions of the vehicle, to increase safety.”).
Conclusion
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 MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668