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 § 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frazzoli et al (US 2021/0163021).
1. A method for operating an assistance system of an at least in part automatically operated motor vehicle, the method comprising (paras [0003]–[0004]), which describe methods for operating redundant autonomous vehicle operation pipelines within an AV system:
capturing an environment of the motor vehicle by at least one capturing device of the assistance system (para [0004], which states: “…receiving, by the first perception module, first sensor signals from a first set of sensors of an AV, and generating, by the first perception module, a first world view proposal based on the first sensor signals; receiving, by the second perception module, second sensor signals from second set of the sensors of the AV…”, this passage teaches capturing the environment of the motor vehicle using sensors of the assistance system;
evaluating a first driving strategy by a first electronic computing device of the assistance system using a first evaluation algorithm);
evaluating a second driving strategy by a second electronic computing device of the assistance system using a second evaluation algorithm, which is different to the first evaluation algorithm (para [0003], which states: “Each operations subsystem… includes a solution proposer configured to propose solutions for autonomous vehicle operation… and a solution scorer configured to evaluate the proposed solutions… based on one or more cost assessments.”, this teaches evaluating a driving strategy using an evaluation algorithm executed by a computing device);
comparing the first driving strategy and the second driving strategy by the assistance system (para [0022], which states: “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.” This explicitly teaches comparison of two independently generated driving strategies); and
depending on a result of the comparison of the two driving strategies, generating a fallback driving strategy by a third electronic computing device of the assistance system (para [0022], which states: “If one or both trajectories are determined to be unsafe… the autonomous vehicle performs a safe stop maneuver or applies emergency braking…”this teaches generating a fallback strategy based on the result of comparing the driving strategies),
wherein the fallback strategy is different from the first driving strategy and the second driving strategy (para [0022], which states: “…performs a safe stop maneuver or applies emergency braking…”, a safe stop or emergency braking maneuver is distinct from nominal driving trajectories and thus different from the first and second driving strategies).
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the fallback strategy is an emergency maneuver (para [0022], which states: “…performs a safe stop maneuver or applies emergency braking using, for example, an autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system.”,this explicitly teaches the fallback strategy being an emergency maneuver).
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first electronic computing device is a main electronic computing device for maneuver planning and the second electronic computing device is an alternative electronic computing device for maneuver planning (para [0004], which states: “…a first planning module… and a second planning module…”, the disclosure of first and second planning modules establishes a main and alternative maneuver planning computing device).
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein, if the first driving strategy is valid and the second driving strategy is not valid, a transition strategy from the first driving strategy to the fallback strategy is devised by the assistance system, or
if the second driving strategy is valid and the first driving strategy is not valid, a transition strategy from the second driving strategy to the fallback strategy is devised by the assistance system ( paras [0022] and [0065], which describe determining whether one or both trajectories are safe and initiating safe stop behavior when safety conditions are not met, this teaches conditional behavior based on validity of the evaluated strategies).
5. The method according to claim 4, wherein the transition strategy initially performs the first driving strategy and then transitions to performing the fallback strategy, or
the transition strategy initially performs the second driving strategy and then transitions to performing the fallback strategy (para [0065], which states: “Both trajectories safe? Nominal AV operating conditions… initiate ‘safe stop’ maneuver…”, this teaches continued execution of nominal driving prior to transitioning to fallback).
6. The method according to claim 4, wherein during performing the transition strategy a new evaluation of the first driving strategy and the second driving strategy and a new comparison are performed by the assistance system, and
wherein depending on a result of the new comparison a new decision for performing the new first driving strategy or the new second driving strategy or a new transition strategy or a new fallback strategy is made by the assistance system ( paras [0067] and [0065], which describe repeated comparison of outputs and detecting failures leading to further actions, this teaches ongoing re-evaluation during operation).
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein, if the first driving strategy is not valid and the second driving strategy is not valid, the fallback strategy is immediately performed by the assistance system ( para [0022], which states: “If one or both trajectories are determined to be unsafe… performs a safe stop maneuver…”,this teaches immediate fallback when strategies are unsafe).
8. The method according to claim 1, wherein, if the first driving strategy is valid and the second driving strategy is valid, the first driving strategy is performed by the assistance system,
wherein the second driving strategy and the fallback strategy is omitted by the assistance system ( para [0065], which states: “Both trajectories safe? Nominal AV operating conditions.”, this teaches continuing with a driving strategy when both are valid).
9. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first driving strategy and the second driving strategy are compared by comparing each trajectory and/or each velocity (para [0022], which states: “…evaluates the trajectory generated by the other planning module…”, trajectory comparison is explicitly disclosed).
10. The method according to claim 9, wherein the first driving strategy and the second driving strategy are considered to be equivalent, when the strategies are equivalent within a predetermined threshold (para [0003], which states: “…evaluate the proposed solutions… based on one or more cost assessments.”, cost-based evaluation inherently includes threshold-based equivalence determinations).
11. The method according to claim 1, wherein, if the comparison fails, the fallback strategy is performed by the assistance system (para [0067], which states: “Failure detected? … perform safe stop maneuver or other action.”, this teaches fallback execution upon comparison failure).
12. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first electronic computing device uses a rule-based algorithm for evaluating the first driving strategy and/or the second electronic computing device uses a learning-based algorithm for evaluating the second driving strategy ( paras [0003] and [0066], which disclose cost functions and behavior inference models used for evaluation, this supports rule-based and model-based (learning-based) evaluation approaches).
13. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions for causing a processor to perform the method according to claim 1 (para [0141], which states: “The term ‘storage media’… refers to any non-transitory media that store data and/or instructions that cause a machine to operate in a specific fashion.”).
15. An assistance system for an at least in part automatically operated motor vehicle,
the assistance system comprising at least one capturing device, at least one first electronic computing device, one second electronic computing device and one third electronic computing device, wherein the assistance system is configured for performing a method according to claim 1 (paras [0003] and [0004], which disclose an autonomous vehicle system including sensors, multiple computing subsystems, and an output mediator configured to perform the described method).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASUD AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-1315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-8:30 PM PST with IFP.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571 270 3976. 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.
MASUD . AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657A
/MASUD AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657