DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below. Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15 and 18 have been amended.
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, see page 12, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to claims 4-5, 11-12 and 18-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claims 4-5, 11-12 and 18-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see page 12, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Englard in [0041], [0057] and [0073] a decision arbiter in an autonomous vehicle that manages candidate decisions from self-driving control architecture (SDCAs) by adjusting weights based on circumstances or user-selected styles, on a suitable periodic basis, and applying fixed rules or heuristic techniques.
Arbitration based on [0047], [0053]-[0054] of the as-filed specification means to use an execution priority parameter in automated driving system (ADS) messages to pick a winning message by comparing priority values. This parameter can be a dedicated message field or a dual-purpose component like ECU make, model, network address, or ID, or the time of transmission or the time of receipt, or other heuristics.
Disclosing “determine a first diagnostic status of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs in response to at least one of a frequency and a timing of the first message and one or more diagnostic criteria or heuristics relating to said at least one of the frequency and the timing”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Englard et al. (US 20190113918 A1; hereinafter Englard).
Regarding claim 1, Englard discloses:
A vehicle system (Fig. 3 – aggregate SDCA 140) comprising:
a plurality of automated driving system electronic control units (ADS ECUs) (Fig. 3 – SDCAs 104) configured to determine vehicle motion control (VMC) commands in response to input from one or more vehicle environment sensors ([0052] Each of the SDCAs 104 processes its corresponding portion of the sensor data 102 to generate “candidate” decisions 106 for maneuvering/operating the autonomous vehicle) and transmit messages including the VMC commands over one or more communication links (see Fig. 3, [0061] the SDCAs 104 may provide the decision arbiter 108 with candidate decisions 106 that indicate maneuvers); and
an execution authority electronic control unit (EA ECU)(Fig. 3 – decision arbiter 108) configured with execution authority over one or more VMC commands ([0058] the decision arbiter 108 may analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104 in order to generate a final decision that is reflected in the control signals 110) and configured to:
receive via the one or more communication links a first message transmitted by a first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs and including a first VMC command and a second message transmitted by a second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs and including a second VMC command ([0058] the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104),
determine a first diagnostic status ([0041] “Once trained or otherwise programmed, the decision arbiter may select (or increase the weight of, etc.) candidate decisions of specific SDCAs based on the current or expected circumstances. As another example, a particular driving style may be pre-selected (e.g., by a passenger of the autonomous vehicle), and the decision arbiter may select (or increase the weight of, etc.) candidate decisions from the SDCA or SDCAs that was/were specifically trained or otherwise programmed to drive according to the selected style”) of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs in response to at least one of a frequency and a timing of the first message ([0057] “some or all of the SDCAs 104 may generate new outputs asynchronously, with the decision arbiter 108 sampling the candidate decisions 106 (and providing a final decision reflecting in the control signals 110) on a suitable periodic basis (e.g., every 0.5 seconds, etc.)”) and one or more diagnostic criteria or heuristics relating to said at least one of the frequency and the timing ([0073] “the SDCA selector 144 may select from among the candidate decisions 106 using fixed rules and/or heuristic techniques”),
select one of the first VMC command and the second VMC command in response to an arbitration based upon information of the first message and the second message ([0058] the decision arbiter 108 may analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104 in order to generate a final decision or select a single decision from among the candidate decisions 106), and
control motion of the vehicle system using the selected one of the first VMC command and the second VMC command ([0058] a final decision that is reflected in the control signals 110).
Regarding claim 2, Englard discloses:
wherein the EA ECU is configured to:
determine a first authorization status of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs based upon information of the first message ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means), and
determine a second authorization status of the second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs based upon information of the second message ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means).
Regarding claim 3, Englard discloses:
wherein the EA ECU is configured to:
determine the first authorization in response to the information of the first message and a first predetermined calibration parameter ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means, [0063] outputs of the safety watchdog 112 or other factors may cause the candidate decision analyzer 122 (or the decision arbiter 108 generally) to bypass analysis of some or all of the candidate decisions 106 in certain scenarios), and
determine the second authorization in response to the information of the second message and a second predetermined calibration parameter ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means, [0063] outputs of the safety watchdog 112 or other factors may cause the candidate decision analyzer 122 (or the decision arbiter 108 generally) to bypass analysis of some or all of the candidate decisions 106 in certain scenarios).
Regarding claim 4, Englard discloses:
wherein the EA ECU is configured to:
determine a second diagnostic status ([0041] “Once trained or otherwise programmed, the decision arbiter may select (or increase the weight of, etc.) candidate decisions of specific SDCAs based on the current or expected circumstances. As another example, a particular driving style may be pre-selected (e.g., by a passenger of the autonomous vehicle), and the decision arbiter may select (or increase the weight of, etc.) candidate decisions from the SDCA or SDCAs that was/were specifically trained or otherwise programmed to drive according to the selected style”) of a second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs in response to diagnostic information transmitted to the EA ECU from one of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs and a third one of the plurality of ADS ECUs ([0058] analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104).
Regarding claim 5, Englard discloses:
wherein the arbitration is based at least in part upon the first diagnostic status and the second diagnostic status ([0085] the decision arbiter 108 may generate final decisions by performing functions of the candidate decision analyzer 122 in some scenarios, and instead performing the functions of the SDCA selector 142 in other scenarios).
Regarding claim 6, Englard discloses:
wherein the EA ECU is configured to:
determine the first diagnostic status based upon the information received from a second ECU ([0085] the decision arbiter 108 may generate final decisions by performing hybrid functions that combine aspects of the candidate decision analyzer 122 with aspects of the SDCA selector 142. For example, the decision arbiter 108 may select the candidate decisions 106 of a particular subset of the SDCAs 104 based on both a priori knowledge of the SDCAs 104 and detected conditions and/or situations, and then analyze all candidate decisions 106 from that subset to generate final decisions (e.g., by calculating the geometric means of operational parameters indicated by the candidate decisions 106 of the subset, or by voting, etc.)).
Regarding claim 7, Englard discloses:
wherein the second ECU is a braking system ECU ([0042] some SDCAs may output candidate maneuvers (e.g., brake gradually or rapidly)).
Regarding claim 8, Englard discloses:
A process comprising:
operating a plurality of automated driving system electronic control units (ADS ECUs)(Fig. 3 – SDCAs 104) to perform the acts of determining vehicle motion control (VMC) commands in response to input from one or more vehicle environment sensors ([0052] Each of the SDCAs 104 processes its corresponding portion of the sensor data 102 to generate “candidate” decisions 106 for maneuvering/operating the autonomous vehicle) and transmitting messages including the VMC commands over one or more communication links (see Fig. 3, [0061] the SDCAs 104 may provide the decision arbiter 108 with candidate decisions 106 that indicate maneuvers); and
operating an execution authority electronic control unit (EA ECU)(Fig. 3 – decision arbiter 108) configured with execution authority over one or more VMC commands ([0058] the decision arbiter 108 may analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104 in order to generate a final decision that is reflected in the control signals 110) to perform the acts of:
receiving via the one or more communication links a first message transmitted by a first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs and including a first VMC command and a second message transmitted by a second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs and including a second VMC command ([0058] the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104),
determining a first diagnostic status ([0041] “Once trained or otherwise programmed, the decision arbiter may select (or increase the weight of, etc.) candidate decisions of specific SDCAs based on the current or expected circumstances. As another example, a particular driving style may be pre-selected (e.g., by a passenger of the autonomous vehicle), and the decision arbiter may select (or increase the weight of, etc.) candidate decisions from the SDCA or SDCAs that was/were specifically trained or otherwise programmed to drive according to the selected style”) of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs in response to at least one of a frequency and a timing of the first message ([0057] “some or all of the SDCAs 104 may generate new outputs asynchronously, with the decision arbiter 108 sampling the candidate decisions 106 (and providing a final decision reflecting in the control signals 110) on a suitable periodic basis (e.g., every 0.5 seconds, etc.)”) and one or more diagnostic criteria or heuristics relating to said at least one of the frequency and the timing ([0073] “the SDCA selector 144 may select from among the candidate decisions 106 using fixed rules and/or heuristic techniques”),
selecting one of the first VMC command and the second VMC command in response to an arbitration based upon information of the first message and the second message ([0058] the decision arbiter 108 may analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104 in order to generate a final decision or select a single decision from among the candidate decisions 106), and
controlling motion of the vehicle system using the selected one of the first VMC command and the second VMC command ([0058] a final decision that is reflected in the control signals 110).
Regarding claim 9, Englard discloses:
comprising operating the EA ECU to perform the acts of:
determining a first authorization status of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs based upon information of the first message ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means), and
determining a second authorization status of the second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs based upon information of the second message ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means).
Regarding claim 10, Englard discloses:
comprising operating the EA ECU to perform the acts of:
determining the first authorization in response to the information of the first message and a first predetermined calibration parameter ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means, [0063] outputs of the safety watchdog 112 or other factors may cause the candidate decision analyzer 122 (or the decision arbiter 108 generally) to bypass analysis of some or all of the candidate decisions 106 in certain scenarios), and
determining the second authorization in response to the information of the second message and a second predetermined calibration parameter ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means, [0063] outputs of the safety watchdog 112 or other factors may cause the candidate decision analyzer 122 (or the decision arbiter 108 generally) to bypass analysis of some or all of the candidate decisions 106 in certain scenarios).
Regarding claim 11, Englard discloses:
comprising operating the EA ECU to perform the act of determining a second diagnostic status ([0041] “Once trained or otherwise programmed, the decision arbiter may select (or increase the weight of, etc.) candidate decisions of specific SDCAs based on the current or expected circumstances. As another example, a particular driving style may be pre-selected (e.g., by a passenger of the autonomous vehicle), and the decision arbiter may select (or increase the weight of, etc.) candidate decisions from the SDCA or SDCAs that was/were specifically trained or otherwise programmed to drive according to the selected style”) of a second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs in response to diagnostic information transmitted to the EA ECU from one of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs and a third one of the plurality of ADS ECUs ([0058] analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104).
Regarding claim 12, Englard discloses:
wherein the arbitration is based at least in part upon the first diagnostic status and the second diagnostic status ([0085] the decision arbiter 108 may generate final decisions by performing functions of the candidate decision analyzer 122 in some scenarios, and instead performing the functions of the SDCA selector 142 in other scenarios).
Regarding claim 13, Englard discloses:
comprising operating the EA ECU to perform the act of:
determining the first diagnostic status based upon information received from a second ECU ([0085] the decision arbiter 108 may generate final decisions by performing hybrid functions that combine aspects of the candidate decision analyzer 122 with aspects of the SDCA selector 142. For example, the decision arbiter 108 may select the candidate decisions 106 of a particular subset of the SDCAs 104 based on both a priori knowledge of the SDCAs 104 and detected conditions and/or situations, and then analyze all candidate decisions 106 from that subset to generate final decisions (e.g., by calculating the geometric means of operational parameters indicated by the candidate decisions 106 of the subset, or by voting, etc.)), the second ECU being in operative communication with the EA ECU via at least one of the one or more communication links (see Fig. 3, [0061] the SDCAs 104 may provide the decision arbiter 108 with candidate decisions 106 that indicate maneuvers).
Regarding claim 14, Englard discloses:
wherein the second ECU is a braking system ECU ([0042] some SDCAs may output candidate maneuvers (e.g., brake gradually or rapidly)).
Regarding claim 15, Englard discloses:
An apparatus (Abstract – autonomous vehicle) comprising:
an electronic control system (Fig. 3 – aggregate SDCA 140) including one or more non-transitory memory media (Abstract – computer-readable medium) configured to store instructions executable by one or more processors (Abstract – one or more processors)(Abstract – A computer-readable medium stores instructions executable by one or more processors to implement an aggregate self-driving control architecture (SDCA) for controlling an autonomous vehicle) to:
operate a plurality of automated driving system electronic control units (ADS ECUs)(Fig. 3 – SDCAs 104) to determine vehicle motion control (VMC) commands in response to input from one or more vehicle environment sensors ([0052] Each of the SDCAs 104 processes its corresponding portion of the sensor data 102 to generate “candidate” decisions 106 for maneuvering/operating the autonomous vehicle) and transmit messages including the VMC commands over one or more communication links (see Fig. 3, [0061] the SDCAs 104 may provide the decision arbiter 108 with candidate decisions 106 that indicate maneuvers); and
operate an execution authority electronic control unit (EA ECU)(Fig. 3 – decision arbiter 108) configured with execution authority over one or more VMC commands ([0058] the decision arbiter 108 may analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104 in order to generate a final decision that is reflected in the control signals 110) to:
receive via the one or more communication links a first message transmitted by a first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs and including a first VMC command and a second message transmitted by a second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs and including a second VMC command ([0058] the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104),
determine a first diagnostic status ([0041] “Once trained or otherwise programmed, the decision arbiter may select (or increase the weight of, etc.) candidate decisions of specific SDCAs based on the current or expected circumstances. As another example, a particular driving style may be pre-selected (e.g., by a passenger of the autonomous vehicle), and the decision arbiter may select (or increase the weight of, etc.) candidate decisions from the SDCA or SDCAs that was/were specifically trained or otherwise programmed to drive according to the selected style”) of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs at least one of a frequency and a timing of the first message ([0057] “some or all of the SDCAs 104 may generate new outputs asynchronously, with the decision arbiter 108 sampling the candidate decisions 106 (and providing a final decision reflecting in the control signals 110) on a suitable periodic basis (e.g., every 0.5 seconds, etc.)”) and one or more diagnostic criteria or heuristics relating to said at least one of the frequency and the timing ([0073] “the SDCA selector 144 may select from among the candidate decisions 106 using fixed rules and/or heuristic techniques”),
select one of the first VMC command and the second VMC command in response to an arbitration based upon information of the first message and the second message ([0058] the decision arbiter 108 may analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104 in order to generate a final decision or select a single decision from among the candidate decisions 106), and
control motion of the vehicle system using the selected one of the first VMC command and the second VMC command ([0058] a final decision that is reflected in the control signals 110).
Regarding claim 16, Englard discloses:
wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to operate the EA ECU to:
determine a first authorization status of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs based upon information of the first message ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means), and
determine a second authorization status of the second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs based upon information of the second message ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means).
Regarding claim 17, Englard discloses:
wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to operate the EA ECU to:
determine the first authorization in response to the information of the first message and a first predetermined calibration parameter ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means, [0063] outputs of the safety watchdog 112 or other factors may cause the candidate decision analyzer 122 (or the decision arbiter 108 generally) to bypass analysis of some or all of the candidate decisions 106 in certain scenarios), and
determine the second authorization in response to the information of the second message and a second predetermined calibration parameter ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means, [0063] outputs of the safety watchdog 112 or other factors may cause the candidate decision analyzer 122 (or the decision arbiter 108 generally) to bypass analysis of some or all of the candidate decisions 106 in certain scenarios).
Regarding claim 18, Englard discloses:
wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to operate the EA ECU to:
determine a second diagnostic status ([0041] “Once trained or otherwise programmed, the decision arbiter may select (or increase the weight of, etc.) candidate decisions of specific SDCAs based on the current or expected circumstances. As another example, a particular driving style may be pre-selected (e.g., by a passenger of the autonomous vehicle), and the decision arbiter may select (or increase the weight of, etc.) candidate decisions from the SDCA or SDCAs that was/were specifically trained or otherwise programmed to drive according to the selected style”) of a second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs in response to diagnostic information transmitted to the EA ECU from one of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs and a third one of the plurality of ADS ECUs ([0058] analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104).
Regarding claim 19, Englard discloses:
wherein the arbitration is based at least in part upon the first diagnostic status and the second diagnostic status ([0085] the decision arbiter 108 may generate final decisions by performing functions of the candidate decision analyzer 122 in some scenarios, and instead performing the functions of the SDCA selector 142 in other scenarios).
Regarding claim 20, Englard discloses:
wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to operate the EA ECU to:
determine the first diagnostic status based upon information received from a second ECU ([0085] the decision arbiter 108 may generate final decisions by performing hybrid functions that combine aspects of the candidate decision analyzer 122 with aspects of the SDCA selector 142. For example, the decision arbiter 108 may select the candidate decisions 106 of a particular subset of the SDCAs 104 based on both a priori knowledge of the SDCAs 104 and detected conditions and/or situations, and then analyze all candidate decisions 106 from that subset to generate final decisions (e.g., by calculating the geometric means of operational parameters indicated by the candidate decisions 106 of the subset, or by voting, etc.)), the second ECU being in operative communication with the EA ECU via at least one of the one or more communication links (see Fig. 3, [0061] the SDCAs 104 may provide the decision arbiter 108 with candidate decisions 106 that indicate maneuvers).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAYSUN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-1528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571)272-7298. 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.
/PAYSUN WU/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights