The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on 23 October 2025.
Claims 1-9 are pending and examined. Claims 3-9 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Claim objection as to claims 3, 5-7, and 8-9 withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment and argument.
Claim rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as to claims 1-9 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment and argument.
Applicant’s arguments against rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Dirndorfer, DE102014015493 (A1) in view of Marberger, US2018/0292820 (A1) have been carefully considered. Applicant seems to argue against the cited prior art does not teach a time requirement associated with receiving the anomaly is greater than a predetermined period of time” as recited in claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Dirndorfer teaches autonomously operating a vehicle but does not specifically teach the method comprising: autonomously operating a vehicle according to a control loop implemented by the autonomous vehicle control system; detecting an anomaly based on the monitored internal state, wherein upon detecting the anomaly, the autonomous vehicle control system determines a level of surrounding traffic and a time requirement associated with resolving the anomaly.
However, Marberger teaches a prediction model according to which control is transferred from automatic control to operator on board the vehicle in the form of a control loop based on monitored internal states of vehicle and operator (Marberger: ¶28, 30), and detecting confusing traffic conditions based on monitoring vehicle sensor to transfer control between automatic control and operator control in different time period with respect to a predetermined time interval (Marberger: abs, ¶4-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the operating modes of autonomous vehicle system as taught by Dirndorfer to include autonomously operating a vehicle according to a control loop implemented by the autonomous vehicle control system; detecting an anomaly based on the monitored internal state, wherein upon detecting the anomaly, the autonomous vehicle control system determines a level of surrounding traffic and a time requirement associated with resolving the anomaly as taught by Marberger to support driving tasks of a vehicle operator (Dirndorfer: ¶2).
Applicant does not argue the dependent claims except the dependency of base claim 1. As the rejection of claim 1 is proper, rejection of dependent claims is proper.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Dirndorfer, DE102014015493 (A1) in view of Marberger, US2018/0292820 (A1).
As to claim 1, Dirndorfer teaches a method implemented with an autonomous vehicle control system, the autonomous vehicle control system including a processor, one or more onboard sensors, and memory that stores processor executable instructions which when executed by the processor configures the processor to execute the method (Fig. 1 and related text) comprising:
autonomously operating a vehicle (“As explained at the beginning, a switchover to the second operating mode can take place when a system limit for automated guidance of the motor vehicle has been reached. Such system limits can be specified by the motor vehicle itself, for example when the motor vehicle is moved close to or in the physical limit area that is specified by the parameters of the motor vehicle and the surroundings, in particular by static friction between the tires of the motor vehicle and the road. However, system limits for automated guidance can also be reached if the limits of data acquisition or data processing are reached. A change to the second operating mode can thus take place if the environment data do not allow sufficient detection and analysis of the motor vehicle environment for driving through an existing driving situation. This can be the case in particular when the sensor data is of insufficient quality, for example when the recording of sensor data is disturbed by the effects of the weather or when the surrounding situation to be recorded is very complex.”, ¶12);
monitoring an internal state of the vehicle by determining, via the autonomous vehicle control system, confidence levels based on an analysis of roadway roughness and visual textures (“quality information item can represent an individual value which consists of individual recognition probabilities or respectively. Accuracys for determined data and/or degree of completeness are calculated”…”quality of an environment model that is determined from the environment data for the automated guidance of the motor
vehicle. A significance of an object recognition as well as an accuracy of object properties, in particular of determined speeds or Locations of objects, taken into account. The quality of the environment model also depends on its completeness. In addition, the switchover condition evaluates the extent to which the motor vehicle 1 is operated at a system limit of the motor vehicle 1 itself and at the system limits of the automated control. System limits of the motor vehicle 1 itself are, in particular, friction between the tires of the motor vehicle 1 and the road as well as acceleration and braking possibilities of the motor vehicle 1.”), ¶12-13, 27);
passing the operation of the vehicle to an external processing system based on the determined level of surrounding traffic and the autonomous vehicle control system determining that the time requirement associated with resolving the anomaly is greater than a predetermined period of time (“A system limit of the automated control of the motor vehicle 1 is in particular the response time of the automated control. If it is determined that automated driving of the motor vehicle 1 is no longer possible
within the described system limits, it would be necessary in motor vehicles according to the prior art to return the driving task to a driver immediately or within a predetermined time interval or to put the motor vehicle in a safe state transfer, that is, to brake in particular to a standstill”, ¶27).
Dirndorfer teaches autonomously operating a vehicle but does not specifically teach the method comprising:
autonomously operating a vehicle according to a control loop implemented by the autonomous vehicle control system;
detecting an anomaly based on the monitored internal state, wherein upon detecting the anomaly, the autonomous vehicle control system determines a level of surrounding traffic and a time requirement associated with resolving the anomaly.
However, Marberger teaches a prediction model according to which control is transferred from automatic control to operator on board the vehicle in the form of a control loop based on monitored internal states of vehicle and operator (Marberger: ¶28, 30), and detecting confusing traffic conditions based on monitoring vehicle sensor to transfer control between automatic control and operator control in different time period with respect to a predetermined time interval (Marberger: abs, ¶4-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the operating modes of autonomous vehicle system as taught by Dirndorfer to include autonomously operating a vehicle according to a control loop implemented by the autonomous vehicle control system; detecting an anomaly based on the monitored internal state, wherein upon detecting the anomaly, the autonomous vehicle control system determines a level of surrounding traffic and a time requirement associated with resolving the anomaly as taught by Marberger to support driving tasks of a vehicle operator (Dirndorfer: ¶2).
As to claim 2, Dirndorfer modified by Marberger teaches the method wherein the anomaly includes any of a sensed environmental condition or an attained internal state of the vehicle under which the autonomous control system cannot determine a confidence level within a predetermined level of uncertainty (Dirndorfer: degree of completeness, detection probabilities or accuracies of detection of sensor data, ¶12-13).
As to claim 3, Dirndorfer modified by Marberger teaches the method further comprising the processor and circuitry of the autonomous vehicle control system, configured by reading the processor executable instructions, executing the step of:
receiving, at the autonomous vehicle control system, via a wireless communication channel, information associated with the detected anomaly, wherein the information is generated from an analysis performed by the external entity and broadcasted on the wireless communication channel therefrom (Dirndorfer: Fig. 1 and related text, ¶29, 25).
As to claim 4, Dirndorfer modified by Marberger teaches the method wherein the autonomous vehicle control system passes the operation of the vehicle to the external entity when the autonomous vehicle control system detects a change to the monitored internal state (Dirndorfer: Fig. 1 and related text, ¶25-29).
As to claim 5, Dirndorfer modified by Marberger teaches the method further comprising the processor and circuitry of the autonomous vehicle control system, configured by reading the processor executable instructions, executing the step of:
permitting user controls to provide interaction with one or more vehicle systems when the time requirement associated with resolving the anomaly is less than a predetermined period of time (Dirndorfer: Fig. 1 and related text, ¶25-29; Marberger; abs; see claim 1 above for reasons and rationale to combine).
As to claim 6, Dirndorfer modified by Marberger teaches the method further comprising the processor and circuitry of the autonomous vehicle control system, configured by reading the processor executable instructions, executing the step of:
receiving, at the autonomous vehicle control system, instructions from the external processing system, to resume autonomous operation of the vehicle by the autonomous vehicle control system (Dirndorfer: “A highly automated and a fully automated guidance of a motor vehicle differ in that a risk-minimal system state can always be brought about by the driver assistance system itself during a fully automated guidance.”, ¶2).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Dirndorfer, DE102014015493 (A1) in view of Marberger, US 2018/0292820 (A1), further in view of Iagnemma, US 2017/0336788 (A1).
As to claim 7, Dirndorfer modified by Marberger does not specifically teach the method further comprising the processor and circuitry of the autonomous vehicle control system, configured by reading the processor executable instructions, executing the step of:
receiving, at the autonomous vehicle control system, information from a regulatory entity; and
operating the vehicle according to the control loop implemented by the autonomous vehicle control system, in any of a region or space based on the received information.
However, in the same field of endeaver, Iagnemma teaches that local rules of operation of vehicle and traffic rules of road in a database of the memory are transmitted to the autonomous vehicle to travel along a trajectory and enable control actions of the operational features and functions of the autonomous vehicle (Iagnemma: abs, ¶71, 101-102, 80). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the operating modes of autonomous vehicle system as taught by Dirndorfer and Marberger, with a reasonable expectation of success, to include receiving, at the autonomous vehicle control system, information from a regulatory entity; and operating the vehicle according to the control loop implemented by the autonomous vehicle control system, in any of a region or space based on the received informationas taught by Iagnemma to support driving tasks of a vehicle operator (Dirndorfer: ¶2).
As to claim 8, Dirndorfer modified by Marberger and Iagnemma teaches the method wherein the received information includes any of a rule or regulation for operation of the vehicle in the region or space (“computer system 18 (data processor) located on the vehicle that is capable of executing algorithms 69, e.g., as described in this application. The algorithms, among other things, process data provided by the above sources and (in addition to other results discussed below), compute potential trajectories that the ego vehicle may follow through the local environment over a short future time horizon (the time horizon can be, for example, on the order of 2-5 seconds, although, in some cases, the time horizon can be shorter (for example, fractions of seconds) or longer (for example tens of seconds, minutes, or many minutes). The algorithms can also jointly analyze the potential trajectories, the properties of the environment (e.g. the locations of neighboring vehicles and other obstacles), and the properties of the local road network (i.e. the positions and physical properties of travel lanes) to identify alternative travel lanes or other travel paths that contain safe trajectories for the ego vehicle to travel along.”, ¶73).
As to claim 9, Dirndorfer modified by Marberger and Iagnemma teaches the method further comprising the processor and circuitry of the autonomous vehicle control system, configured by reading the processor executable instructions, executing the step of:
storing the received information in the memory and operating the vehicle in the region or space (“Data sources 64 providing road maps drawn from GIS databases, potentially including high-precision maps of the roadway geometric properties, maps describing road network connectivity properties, maps describing roadway physical properties (such as the number of vehicular and cyclist travel lanes, lane width, lane traffic direction, lane marker type, and location), and maps describing the spatial locations of road features such as crosswalks, traffic signs of various types (e.g., stop, yield), and traffic signals of various types (e.g., red-yellow-green indicators, flashing yellow or red indicators, right or left turn arrows). In some instances, such data is stored on a memory unit 65 on the vehicle or transmitted to the vehicle by wireless communication from a remotely located database 67”, ¶71).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Examiner’s Request
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (313)446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUEN WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667