DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is responsive to the amendment filed 1/22/2026.
In the amendment Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are pending. Claim 4 was canceled. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1, 8 and 16 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Please note allowability status of claims are subject to change should relevant prior art be discovered anytime during prosecution.
Withdrawn Rejections
5. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 8-20 have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
6. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-19 with cited references Sucan (U.S. 11,360,474) in view of Herbach (U.S. Pub 2022/0180753) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
7. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 20 with cited references Sucan (U.S. 11,360,474) in view of Herbach (U.S. Pub 2022/0180753) further in view of Seegmiller (U.S. Pub 2022/0161791) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
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 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.
8. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sucan (U.S. 11,360,474, filed Aug. 7, 2020) in view of Barton (U.S. 9,551,992, filed Jan. 8, 2016) further in view of Herbach (U.S. Pub 2022/0180753, filed Feb. 8, 2022).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Sucan discloses A method, comprising:
periodically receiving, from a planning system of an autonomous vehicle (AV) updates to a planned trajectory and, at least partially in parallel with the updates to the planned trajectory, updates to a fallback trajectory, wherein the planned trajectory is a trajectory to a planned location of the AV and the fallback trajectory is a trajectory to a fallback stopping location in an environment of the AV (see col. 1, lines 50-67 & col. 4, lines 1-36, discloses periodically receiving updates to a planned trajectory by a planner system has a new trajectory including fallback instructions comprising a solution related to a stopping location for the AV);
causing the AV to operate according to the updates to the planned trajectory (see col. 10 lines 60-67 & col. 11, lines 1-20, discloses causing the AV to follow the updates via new trajectory); and
upon determining that a threshold amount of time has passed since a time of receipt of a last update to the planned trajectory from the planning system of the AV, autonomously modifying operation of the AV according to a last update of the fallback trajectory received from the planning system of the AV (col. 11, lines 1- 19 & col. 15, lines 1-10, disclose that when a update via new trajectory is not received in time the vehicle can safely pull over by following the second portion of the trajectory that comprises the fallback solution). Sucan generates a single unified trajectory with an embedded fallback portion but fails to teach a separately maintained and updated fallback trajectory that is transmitted in parallel. Barton discloses at the same time that the primary system generates the fallback trajectory it also generates the nominal trajectory. Further teaching generation of two different trajectories and prior to reaching the first divergent location receive the fallback trajectory as an updated trajectory (see col. 4, lines 45-67). Thereby the primary computing system simultaneously generates both a nominal/planned trajectory and a separate fallback trajectory at each planning cycle and periodically sends updated fallback trajectories to the secondary system. In addition, teaching that the secondary system tracks elapsed time since the last received trajectory update and upon reaching a threshold point continues operating according to the last received fallback trajectory to safely stop the vehicle (see col. 15, lines 25-45). Barton discloses only single fallback trajectory with no concept of selection between different fallback trajectories. Herbach discloses multiple sperate fallback options with independent updates to fallback tasks/trajectories including a fallback selector module (see paragraphs 24-38). Sucan, Barton and Herbach address the same fundamental problem of ensuring safe AV operation when a planning system fails or is delayed in providing trajectory updates. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have independently updated in parallel fallback tasks as sperate fallback trajectories in the planner system of Sucan. One motivation has outlined by Herbach in paragraph 93 is to account for urgency level between fallback tasks based on different triggers which improves fallback selection.
Regarding Dependent claim 2, with dependency of claim 1, Sucan discloses wherein the fallback stopping location comprises at least one of: a shoulder of a road in the environment of the AV; a gore region of a road lane in the environment of the AV; or a center portion of a road lane in the environment of the AV (see col. 6, lines 30-40).
Regarding Dependent claim 3, with dependency of claim 1, Sucan discloses wherein the fallback trajectory reduces a velocity of the AV to 0 at the fallback stopping location within a threshold amount of time (see col. 6, lines 15-40).
Regarding Dependent claims 5 and 13, Sucan discloses wherein the planned trajectory and the fallback trajectory match for a predetermined amount of time (see col. 11, lines 10-20).
Regarding Dependent claim 6, with dependency of claim 1, Sucan discloses adjusting the fallback trajectory to conform to a predetermined kinematic limit of the AV (see col. 11, lines 5-20).
Regarding Dependent claim 7, with dependency of claim 1, Sucan discloses wherein the fallback trajectory indicates that the AV is to maintain a velocity for a predetermined amount of time (see col. 11, lines 5-20).
Regarding Independent claims 8 and 16, Sucan discloses A system, comprising: a memory; and one or more processing devices, coupled to the memory, configured to perform operations comprising:
periodically receiving, from a planning system of an autonomous vehicle (AV), updates to a planned trajectory and, at least partially in parallel with the updates to the planned trajectory, updates to one or more fallback trajectories, wherein the planned trajectory is a trajectory to a planned location of the AV and each fallback trajectory of the one or more fallback trajectories is a trajectory to a corresponding fallback stopping location of one or more fallback stopping location in an environment of the AV (see col. 1, lines 50-67 & col. 4, lines 1-36, discloses periodically receiving updates to a planned trajectory by a planner system has a new trajectory including fallback instructions comprising a solution related to a stopping location for the AV);
causing the AV to operate according to the updates to the planned trajectory (see col. 10 lines 60-67 & col. 11, lines 1-20, discloses causing the AV to follow the updates via new trajectory);
upon determining that a threshold amount of time has passed since a time of receipt of a last update to the planned trajectory from the planning system of the AV, autonomously modifying operation of the AV according to a last update of the selected fallback trajectory received from the planning system of the AV (col. 11, lines 1- 19 & col. 15, lines 1-10, disclose that when a update via new trajectory is not received in time the vehicle can safely pull over by following the second portion of the trajectory that comprises the fallback solution). Sucan generates a single unified trajectory with an embedded fallback portion but fails to teach a separately maintained and updated fallback trajectory that is transmitted in parallel. Barton discloses at the same time that the primary system generates the fallback trajectory it also generates the nominal trajectory. Further teaching generation of two different trajectories and prior to reaching the first divergent location receive the fallback trajectory as an updated trajectory (see col. 4, lines 45-67). Thereby the primary computing system simultaneously generates both a nominal/planned trajectory and a separate fallback trajectory at each planning cycle and periodically sends updated fallback trajectories to the secondary system. In addition, teaching that the secondary system tracks elapsed time since the last received trajectory update and upon reaching a threshold point continues operating according to the last received fallback trajectory to safely stop the vehicle (see col. 15, lines 25-45). Barton discloses only single fallback trajectory with no concept of selection between different fallback trajectories.
Herbach discloses:
selecting a fallback trajectory of the one or more fallback trajectories based on a selection metric associated with the corresponding fallback trajectory (see paragraphs 24-38, discloses multiple sperate fallback options with independent updates to fallback tasks/trajectories including a fallback selector module); Sucan, Barton and Herbach address the same fundamental problem of ensuring safe AV operation when a planning system fails or is delayed in providing trajectory updates. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have independently updated in parallel fallback tasks as sperate fallback trajectories in the planner system of Sucan. One motivation has outlined by Herbach in paragraph 93 is to account for urgency level between fallback tasks based on different triggers which improves fallback selection.
Regarding Dependent claim 9, with dependency of claim 8, Sucan discloses wherein: a fallback stopping location of the one or more fallback stopping locations of the one or more fallback trajectories comprises a portion of a shoulder of a road in the environment of the AV; and the portion of the shoulder is within a predetermined distance of a road lane of the road (see col. 6, lines 30-40).
Regarding Dependent claim 11, with dependency of claim 8, Sucan generates a single unified trajectory with an embedded fallback portion but fails to teach a separately maintained and updated fallback trajectory that is transmitted in parallel. Barton discloses at the same time that the primary system generates the fallback trajectory it also generates the nominal trajectory. Further teaching generation of two different trajectories and prior to reaching the first divergent location receive the fallback trajectory as an updated trajectory (see col. 4, lines 45-67). Thereby the primary computing system simultaneously generates both a nominal/planned trajectory and a separate fallback trajectory at each planning cycle and periodically sends updated fallback trajectories to the secondary system. In addition, teaching that the secondary system tracks elapsed time since the last received trajectory update and upon reaching a threshold point continues operating according to the last received fallback trajectory to safely stop the vehicle (see col. 15, lines 25-45). Barton discloses only single fallback trajectory with no concept of selection between different fallback trajectories. Herbach discloses wherein each fallback trajectory of the one or more fallback trajectories comprises a trajectory based, at least in part, on a previous version of the planned trajectory of the AV (see paragraphs 24-38, discloses multiple sperate fallback options with independent updates to fallback tasks/trajectories including a fallback selector module); Sucan, Barton and Herbach address the same fundamental problem of ensuring safe AV operation when a planning system fails or is delayed in providing trajectory updates. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have independently updated in parallel fallback tasks as sperate fallback trajectories in the planner system of Sucan. One motivation has outlined by Herbach in paragraph 93 is to account for urgency level between fallback tasks based on different triggers which improves fallback selection.
Regarding Dependent claims 12 and 19, Sucan generates a single unified trajectory with an embedded fallback portion but fails to teach a separately maintained and updated fallback trajectory that is transmitted in parallel. Barton discloses at the same time that the primary system generates the fallback trajectory it also generates the nominal trajectory. Further teaching generation of two different trajectories and prior to reaching the first divergent location receive the fallback trajectory as an updated trajectory (see col. 4, lines 45-67). Thereby the primary computing system simultaneously generates both a nominal/planned trajectory and a separate fallback trajectory at each planning cycle and periodically sends updated fallback trajectories to the secondary system. In addition, teaching that the secondary system tracks elapsed time since the last received trajectory update and upon reaching a threshold point continues operating according to the last received fallback trajectory to safely stop the vehicle (see col. 15, lines 25-45). Barton discloses only single fallback trajectory with no concept of selection between different fallback trajectories. Herbach discloses wherein the selection metric associated with the respective fallback trajectory is based on at least one of: a distance to the fallback stopping location of the respective fallback trajectory; whether the respective fallback trajectory crosses a predicted trajectory of an object in the environment of the AV; or a lateral movement of the respective fallback trajectory (see paragraph 86, discloses that the fallback selections are based on a metric associated with urgency level has determined by for example a flat tire indicating the vehicle is not being able to drive far). Sucan, Barton and Herbach address the same fundamental problem of ensuring safe AV operation when a planning system fails or is delayed in providing trajectory updates. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have independently updated in parallel fallback tasks as sperate fallback trajectories in the planner system of Sucan. One motivation has outlined by Herbach in paragraph 93 is to account for urgency level between fallback tasks based on different triggers which improves fallback selection.
Regarding Dependent claim 14, with dependency of claim 13, Sucan discloses wherein the operations further comprise adjusting the predetermined amount of time based on the environment of the AV (see col. 13, lines 44-60).
Regarding Dependent claim 15, with dependency of claim 8, Sucan discloses wherein periodically receiving the updates to the planned trajectory and the updates to the one or more fallback trajectories comprises receiving the updates to the planned trajectory at least partially in parallel with the updates to the one or more fallback trajectories (see col. 1, lines 50-67 & col. 4, lines 1-36).
Regarding Dependent claim 17, with dependency of claim 16, Sucan discloses wherein a fallback stopping location of the one or more fallback stopping locations comprises at least one of: a shoulder of a road in the environment of the AV; or a center portion of a road lane in the environment of the AV (see col. 6, lines 30-40).
Regarding Dependent claim 18, with dependency of claim 16, Sucan discloses wherein each fallback trajectory of the one or more fallback trajectories reduces a velocity of the AV to 0 at the respective fallback stopping location within a threshold amount of time (see col. 6, lines 15-40).
Regarding Dependent claim 21, with dependency of claim 1, Sucan generates a single unified trajectory with an embedded fallback portion but fails to teach a separately maintained and updated fallback trajectory that is transmitted in parallel. Barton discloses wherein receiving the updates to the planned trajectory at least partially in parallel with the updates to the fallback trajectory ensures that a current fallback trajectory is available when the threshold amount of time has passed since the time of receipt of the last update to the planned trajectory (see col. 15, lines 25-45). Barton discloses only single fallback trajectory with no concept of selection between different fallback trajectories. Herbach discloses multiple sperate fallback options with independent updates to fallback tasks/trajectories including a fallback selector module (see paragraphs 24-38). Sucan, Barton and Herbach address the same fundamental problem of ensuring safe AV operation when a planning system fails or is delayed in providing trajectory updates. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have independently updated in parallel fallback tasks as sperate fallback trajectories in the planner system of Sucan. One motivation has outlined by Herbach in paragraph 93 is to account for urgency level between fallback tasks based on different triggers which improves fallback selection.
9. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sucan (U.S. 11,360,474, filed Aug. 7, 2020) in view of Barton (U.S. 9,551,992, filed Jan. 8, 2016) further in view of Herbach (U.S. Pub 2022/0180753, filed Feb. 8, 2022) further in view of Seegmiller (U.S. Pub 2022/0161791, filed Nov. 25, 2020).
Regarding Dependent claim 20, with dependency of claim 16, Sucan generates a single unified trajectory with an embedded fallback portion but fails to teach a separately maintained and updated fallback trajectory that is transmitted in parallel. Barton discloses that the primary computing system simultaneously generates both a nominal/planned trajectory and a separate fallback trajectory at each planning cycle and periodically sends updated fallback trajectories to the secondary system (see col. 4, lines 45-67). Barton discloses only single fallback trajectory with no concept of selection between different fallback trajectories. Herbach discloses multiple sperate fallback options with independent updates to fallback tasks/trajectories including a fallback selector module (see paragraphs 24-38). Herbach fails to teach or suggest generating a guide curve for the AV to follow in the fallback trajectory. Seegmiller discloses wherein the executable instructions further cause the processing device to: generate a guide curve; and generate a fallback trajectory of the one or more fallback trajectories based on the guide curve (see abstract, wherein a planning trajectory in an AV determines a reference curve of a path used to alter the planned trajectory). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have generated a guide curve to modify the fallback trajectory to improve comfort and avoid extreme acceleration and jerk has outlined by Seegmiller in paragraph 1.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments filed 1/22/2026 has been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
5/13/2026
Prosecution Insights