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 .
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.
Claims 1-11, 16-18, 20-21, 23-28, 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazzoli (US 2021/0163021) in view of Clawson (US 2023/0132512)
As to claim 1 Frazzoli discloses a vehicle control system for controlling a vehicle in an autonomous operating mode, the vehicle control system comprising:
a virtual driver configured to carry out trajectory planning to generate a trajectory (Paragraph 22 “If the autonomous vehicle is operating within its defined operational domain, at least two independent planning modules (that share a common definition of the operational domain) generate trajectories for the autonomous vehicle. Each planning module evaluates the trajectory generated by the other planning module for at least one collision with at least one object in a scene description.”);
wherein the vehicle control system is configured to control the vehicle using the trajectory (Paragraph 193 “The solution proposers of the redundant planning modules 1510a, 1510b can generate their respective solution proposals based on information from a current world-view 416 received from a perception module 402 of the AV, the AV's position 418, a destination 412 and other data from a database (DB) 410, for instance. Additionally, respective solution scorers (implemented like the solution scorers 1314a, 1314b) of the redundant planning modules 1510a, 1510b can evaluate the route proposals based on one or more cost assessments, e.g., using cost function evaluation of respective planning-cost functions, such as trajectory scoring based on trajectory length, safety, comfort, etc.”);
at least one vehicle actuator (Paragraph 194 “Moreover, the planning-output mediator 1540 selects one of the two routes 1514a, 1514b and provides it down-stream to the controller module 406 where it will be used to determine control signals for actuating a steering actuator B210a, a throttle actuator 420b, and/or a brake actuator 420c.”); and,
an interface unit configured to obtain the trajectory from said virtual driver and to actuate said at least one vehicle actuator to control the vehicle using the trajectory, wherein said interface unit functionally connects said virtual driver and said at least one vehicle actuator (Paragraph 22 “Each planning module evaluates the trajectory generated by the other planning module for at least one collision with at least one object in a scene description. If one or both trajectories are determined to be unsafe (e.g., due to at least one collision being detected), the autonomous vehicle performs a safe stop maneuver or applies emergency braking using, for example, an autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system.”).
Frazzoli discloses a method wherein at least one of data and signals are transmitted exclusively via the interface unit between the virtual driver and the at least one vehicle actuator (Paragraph 22 “Each planning module evaluates the trajectory generated by the other planning module for at least one collision with at least one object in a scene description. If one or both trajectories are determined to be unsafe (e.g., due to at least one collision being detected), the autonomous vehicle performs a safe stop maneuver or applies emergency braking using, for example, an autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system.”). The output of the planning module is input into the control module which then sends instructions which operates control functions such as steering, throttle, and brake to control the vehicle (Paragraph 151 “The control module 406 receives the data representing the route 414 and the data representing the AV position 418 and operates the control functions 420a-c (e.g., steering, throttling, braking, ignition) of the AV in a manner that will cause the AV 100 to travel the route 414 to the destination 412. For example, if the route 414 includes a left turn, the control module 406 will operate the control functions 420a-c in a manner such that the steering angle of the steering function will cause the AV 100 to turn left and the throttling and braking will cause the AV 100 to pause and wait for passing pedestrians or vehicles before the turn is made.”)
The examiner would like to introduce a new reference which describes a single planner which transmits from the virtual driver to the at least one vehicle actuator.
Clawson teaches wherein at least one of data and signals are transmitted exclusively via the interface unit between the virtual driver and the at least one vehicle actuator (Paragraph 86 “At operation 612, the trajectory manager 202 may control the autonomous based at least in part on the output trajectory determined using the state transition model. For example, the trajectory manager 202 may provide the output trajectory to a planning component and/or system controllers of the autonomous vehicle, with instructions for the vehicle to follow the output trajectory. In other examples, controlling the autonomous vehicle in operation 612 may include engaging or disengaging a vehicle safety system based on the output trajectory, changing between two different planner trajectories, between two different alternative trajectories, or between a planner and an alternative trajectory (or vice versa)”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Frazzoli to include the teachings of transmitting signals between the virtual driver and the vehicle actuators for the purpose of controlling the vehicle to travel along the planned trajectory.
As to claim 2 Frazzoli discloses a vehicle control system for controlling a vehicle in an autonomous operating mode, the vehicle control system comprising:
a virtual driver configured to carry out trajectory planning to generate a trajectory (Paragraph 22 “If the autonomous vehicle is operating within its defined operational domain, at least two independent planning modules (that share a common definition of the operational domain) generate trajectories for the autonomous vehicle. Each planning module evaluates the trajectory generated by the other planning module for at least one collision with at least one object in a scene description.”);
wherein the vehicle control system is configured to control the vehicle using the trajectory(Paragraph 193 “The solution proposers of the redundant planning modules 1510a, 1510b can generate their respective solution proposals based on information from a current world-view 416 received from a perception module 402 of the AV, the AV's position 418, a destination 412 and other data from a database (DB) 410, for instance. Additionally, respective solution scorers (implemented like the solution scorers 1314a, 1314b) of the redundant planning modules 1510a, 1510b can evaluate the route proposals based on one or more cost assessments, e.g., using cost function evaluation of respective planning-cost functions, such as trajectory scoring based on trajectory length, safety, comfort, etc.”);
at least one vehicle actuator(Paragraph 194 “Moreover, the planning-output mediator 1540 selects one of the two routes 1514a, 1514b and provides it down-stream to the controller module 406 where it will be used to determine control signals for actuating a steering actuator B210a, a throttle actuator 420b, and/or a brake actuator 420c.”);
an interface unit configured to obtain the trajectory from said virtual driver and to actuate said at least one vehicle actuator to control the vehicle using the trajectory, wherein said interface unit functionally connects said virtual driver and said at least on vehicle actuator (Paragraph 22 “Each planning module evaluates the trajectory generated by the other planning module for at least one collision with at least one object in a scene description. If one or both trajectories are determined to be unsafe (e.g., due to at least one collision being detected), the autonomous vehicle performs a safe stop maneuver or applies emergency braking using, for example, an autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system.”); and
wherein said virtual driver has a planning control unit for carrying out the trajectory planning (Paragraph 193 “FIG. 15 shows an example of a system 1500 which represents a modified version of the system 400, the modification being that the planning module 404 was replaced by redundant planning modules 1510a, 1510b and planning-output mediator 1540. Here, the planning modules 1510a, 1510b were implemented like the AV operations subsystems 1310a, 1310b, and the planning-output mediator 1540 was implemented like the output mediator 1340. Solutions proposed by the solution proposers (implemented like the solution proposers 1312a, 1312b) of the redundant planning modules include route proposals, for instance.”); and, said interface unit has an electronic interface control unit, which is formed independently of said planning control unit and is configured to process the trajectory(Paragraph 22 “If the autonomous vehicle is operating within its defined operational domain, at least two independent planning modules (that share a common definition of the operational domain) generate trajectories for the autonomous vehicle. Each planning module evaluates the trajectory generated by the other planning module for at least one collision with at least one object in a scene description. If one or both trajectories are determined to be unsafe (e.g., due to at least one collision being detected), the autonomous vehicle performs a safe stop maneuver or applies emergency braking using, for example, an autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system.”).
Frazzoli discloses a method wherein at least one of data and signals are transmitted exclusively via the interface unit between the virtual driver and the at least one vehicle actuator (Paragraph 22 “Each planning module evaluates the trajectory generated by the other planning module for at least one collision with at least one object in a scene description. If one or both trajectories are determined to be unsafe (e.g., due to at least one collision being detected), the autonomous vehicle performs a safe stop maneuver or applies emergency braking using, for example, an autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system.”). The output of the planning module is input into the control module which then sends instructions which operates control functions such as steering, throttle, and brake to control the vehicle (Paragraph 151 “The control module 406 receives the data representing the route 414 and the data representing the AV position 418 and operates the control functions 420a-c (e.g., steering, throttling, braking, ignition) of the AV in a manner that will cause the AV 100 to travel the route 414 to the destination 412. For example, if the route 414 includes a left turn, the control module 406 will operate the control functions 420a-c in a manner such that the steering angle of the steering function will cause the AV 100 to turn left and the throttling and braking will cause the AV 100 to pause and wait for passing pedestrians or vehicles before the turn is made.”)
The examiner would like to introduce a new reference which describes a single planner which transmits from the virtual driver to the at least one vehicle actuator.
Clawson teaches wherein at least one of data and signals are transmitted exclusively via the interface unit between the virtual driver and the at least one vehicle actuator (Paragraph 86 “At operation 612, the trajectory manager 202 may control the autonomous based at least in part on the output trajectory determined using the state transition model. For example, the trajectory manager 202 may provide the output trajectory to a planning component and/or system controllers of the autonomous vehicle, with instructions for the vehicle to follow the output trajectory. In other examples, controlling the autonomous vehicle in operation 612 may include engaging or disengaging a vehicle safety system based on the output trajectory, changing between two different planner trajectories, between two different alternative trajectories, or between a planner and an alternative trajectory (or vice versa)”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Frazzoli to include the teachings of transmitting signals between the virtual driver and the vehicle actuators for the purpose of controlling the vehicle to travel along the planned trajectory.
As to claim 3 Frazzoli discloses a vehicle control system further comprising:
a first bus system(Paragraph 193, Figure 13).;
a second bus system; said virtual driver being connected to said first bus system(Paragraph 193, Figure 13).;
said at least one vehicle actuator being connected to said second bus system(Paragraph 193) and,
said interface unit being connected to said first bus system and said second bus system(Paragraph 193, Figure 13).
As to claim 4 Frazzoli discloses a vehicle control system wherein said interface unit is configured to carry a safety function of the vehicle control system; and, said safety function is an admissibility check provided to determine whether the trajectory complies with one or more predefined constraints (Paragraph 161).
As to claim 5 Frazzoli discloses a vehicle control system wherein said one or more predefined constraints is a predefined driving dynamic constraint for the vehicle (Paragraph 161).
As to claim 6 Frazzoli discloses a vehicle control system wherein said interface unit is configured to carry a safety function of the vehicle control system; said safety function is an error monitoring provided to determine whether an error of at least one of the vehicle control system, the vehicle, and a vehicle subsystem is present (Paragraph 321); and,
said interface unit is configured to determine whether the trajectory is feasible in response to a determination of the error of the at least one of the vehicle control system, the vehicle, and the vehicle subsystem (Paragraph 193).
As to claim 7 Frazzoli discloses a vehicle control system wherein said interface unit is configured to drive said at least one vehicle actuator of the vehicle control system for controlling the vehicle using a safety trajectory calculated with a safety function, which includes performing safety planning, if the trajectory violates one or more predefined constraints (Paragraph 193).
As to claim 8 Frazzoli discloses a vehicle control system wherein the one or more predefined constraints includes a driving-dynamic constraint predefined for the vehicle (Paragraph 161).
As to claim 9 Frazzoli discloses a vehicle control system wherein the safety trajectory describes or includes at least one of: an emergency braking maneuver, a stop in lane maneuver, a stop on hard shoulder maneuver, a limp home maneuver, and a mission complete maneuver (Paragraph 507)
As to claim 10 Frazzoli discloses a vehicle control system wherein said interface unit is configured to take into account a determined fault of at least one of the vehicle control system, the vehicle, and a vehicle subsystem in the safety planning (Paragraph 337).
As to claim 11 Frazzoli discloses a vehicle control system wherein said interface unit is configured to carry out the safety planning regardless of whether or not the trajectory is feasible (Paragraph 507).
As to claim 16 Frazzoli discloses a vehicle control system wherein said interface unit is configured to detect and/or to receive at least one of actuator status data from said at least one vehicle actuator and vehicle status data and to provide it to said virtual driver (Paragraph 176-177).
As to claim 17 Frazzoli discloses a vehicle control system wherein said interface unit is a virtual subsystem of at least one of a brake control unit of a brake system, a steering control unit of a steering system, a transmission control unit, an engine control unit, and a main control unit of the vehicle (Paragraph 122).
As to claim 18 Frazzoli discloses a vehicle control system further comprising:
at least one of a redundancy driver and a redundancy interface unit (Paragraph 178);
at least one of said virtual driver and said interface unit being supplied by an operating voltage supply(Paragraph 197);
said at least one of said redundancy driver and said redundancy interface unit being supplied by a redundancy voltage supply independent of the operating voltage supply(Paragraph 197); and,
wherein at least one of:
said redundancy driver has a reduced functionality compared to said virtual driver(Paragraph 388); and,
said redundancy interface unit has a reduced functionality compared to said interface unit(Paragraph 388).
As to claim 20 Frazzoli discloses a method for controlling a vehicle with a vehicle control system, the method comprising:
performing trajectory planning to obtain a trajectory via a virtual driver when an autonomous operating mode is activated(Paragraph 22 “If the autonomous vehicle is operating within its defined operational domain, at least two independent planning modules (that share a common definition of the operational domain) generate trajectories for the autonomous vehicle. Each planning module evaluates the trajectory generated by the other planning module for at least one collision with at least one object in a scene description.”);;
providing the trajectory at an interface unit (Paragraph 22 “If the autonomous vehicle is operating within its defined operational domain, at least two independent planning modules (that share a common definition of the operational domain) generate trajectories for the autonomous vehicle. Each planning module evaluates the trajectory generated by the other planning module for at least one collision with at least one object in a scene description.”);
processing of the trajectory by the interface unit, which is independent of the virtual driver(Paragraph 22 “If the autonomous vehicle is operating within its defined operational domain, at least two independent planning modules (that share a common definition of the operational domain) generate trajectories for the autonomous vehicle. Each planning module evaluates the trajectory generated by the other planning module for at least one collision with at least one object in a scene description.”);; and,
actuating at least one vehicle actuator of the vehicle control system to control the vehicle by the interface unit using the trajectory(Paragraph 22 “Each planning module evaluates the trajectory generated by the other planning module for at least one collision with at least one object in a scene description. If one or both trajectories are determined to be unsafe (e.g., due to at least one collision being detected), the autonomous vehicle performs a safe stop maneuver or applies emergency braking using, for example, an autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system.”).
Frazzoli discloses a method wherein at least one of data and signals are transmitted exclusively via the interface unit between the virtual driver and the at least one vehicle actuator (Paragraph 22 “Each planning module evaluates the trajectory generated by the other planning module for at least one collision with at least one object in a scene description. If one or both trajectories are determined to be unsafe (e.g., due to at least one collision being detected), the autonomous vehicle performs a safe stop maneuver or applies emergency braking using, for example, an autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system.”). The output of the planning module is input into the control module which then sends instructions which operates control functions such as steering, throttle, and brake to control the vehicle (Paragraph 151 “The control module 406 receives the data representing the route 414 and the data representing the AV position 418 and operates the control functions 420a-c (e.g., steering, throttling, braking, ignition) of the AV in a manner that will cause the AV 100 to travel the route 414 to the destination 412. For example, if the route 414 includes a left turn, the control module 406 will operate the control functions 420a-c in a manner such that the steering angle of the steering function will cause the AV 100 to turn left and the throttling and braking will cause the AV 100 to pause and wait for passing pedestrians or vehicles before the turn is made.”)
The examiner would like to introduce a new reference which describes a single planner which transmits from the virtual driver to the at least one vehicle actuator.
Clawson teaches wherein at least one of data and signals are transmitted exclusively via the interface unit between the virtual driver and the at least one vehicle actuator (Paragraph 86 “At operation 612, the trajectory manager 202 may control the autonomous based at least in part on the output trajectory determined using the state transition model. For example, the trajectory manager 202 may provide the output trajectory to a planning component and/or system controllers of the autonomous vehicle, with instructions for the vehicle to follow the output trajectory. In other examples, controlling the autonomous vehicle in operation 612 may include engaging or disengaging a vehicle safety system based on the output trajectory, changing between two different planner trajectories, between two different alternative trajectories, or between a planner and an alternative trajectory (or vice versa)”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Frazzoli to include the teachings of transmitting signals between the virtual driver and the vehicle actuators for the purpose of controlling the vehicle to travel along the planned trajectory.
As to claim 21 Frazzoli discloses a method wherein the vehicle control system includes:
the virtual driver configured to carry out trajectory planning to generate the trajectory(Paragraph 22);
wherein the vehicle control system is configured to control the vehicle using the trajectory(Paragraph 193); and,
the interface unit being configured to obtain the trajectory from said virtual driver and to actuate said at least one vehicle actuator to control the vehicle using the trajectory, wherein said interface unit functionally connects said virtual driver and said at least one vehicle actuator(Paragraph 22).
As to claim 23 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 7.
As to claim 24 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 10.
As to claim 25 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 6.
As to claim 26 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 11.
As to claim 27 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 11.
As to claim 28 Frazzoli discloses a method further comprising:
detecting at least one of sensor data and sensor signals via the interface unit(Paragraph 4); and,
providing the at least one of the sensor data and the sensor signals to the virtual driver by the interface unit and/or querying the at least one of the sensor data and the sensor signals from the interface unit by the virtual driver(Paragraph 4).
As to claim 34 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 8.
As to claim 35 Frazzoli discloses a vehicle comprising the vehicle control system of claim 1 (Paragraph 9).
Claims 12-15, 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazzoli (US 2021/0163021) in view of Clawson (US 2023/0132512) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wood (US 2019/0039609)
As to claim 12 Wood teaches a vehicle control system wherein said interface unit is configured to switch between the autonomous operating mode and a manual operating mode of the vehicle control system; and, said interface unit actuates said at least one vehicle actuator only when the autonomous operating mode is activated (Paragraph 51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Frazzoli to include the teachings of switching between autonomous and manual modes for the purpose of controlling the vehicle without human input.
As to claim 13 Wood teaches a vehicle control system further comprising: an activation switch; and, said interface unit being configured to switch to the autonomous operating mode only when said activation switch is actuated (Paragraph 51).
As to claim 14 Wood teaches a vehicle control system wherein said interface unit is configured to switch to the autonomous operating mode only when said activation switch is actuated and a confirmation signal is provided at said interface unit(Paragraph 51).
As to claim 15 Wood teaches a vehicle control system wherein the confirmation signal is only providable at said interface unit when said interface unit issues a release; and, said interface unit is configured to determine whether predefined activation conditions are met and to issue the release only when the predefined activation conditions are met (Paragraph 51).
As to claim 29 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 13.
As to claim 30 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 13.
As to claim 31 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 14.
As to claim 32 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 15.
As to claim 33 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 15.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazzoli (US 2021/0163021) in view of Clawson (US 2023/0132512) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yang (US 2022/0379920)
As to claim 19 Yang teaches a vehicle control system wherein the vehicle is a utility vehicle (Paragraph 109). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Frazzoli to include the teachings of a utility vehicle for the purpose of planning a trajectory of the utility vehicle along a route.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21, 23-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
5/29/2026
Prosecution Insights