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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant Amendment and Arguments filed on 12/2/2025.
Claim(s) 1-6 are pending for examination.
This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
With regards to claim(s) 1-3 previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 and claim(s) 3 - 6 previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant first argues:
“Kim merely discloses that when detecting a critical situation (a dangerous situation related to autonomous driving) during autonomous driving, a request for control handover to the human driver is transmitted, and if the handover fails, a procedure is initiated to stop the vehicle by performing an MRM (minimal risk maneuver) mode.
However, the MRM execution in Kim is limited to post-event control after the deviation has been "detected." That is, after the system has already entered a state where normal driving is impossible, it performs a one-time procedure to safely stop the vehicle.
However, the claimed invention performs a pre-judgment based on the point in time when a "deviation is predicted," and instead of a single stop command, it explores safe zones step by step through multi-stage section settings around the predicted deviation point, and performs stepwise fallback control in the order of full shoulder --half shoulder stop depending on the safety level and road conditions of each section.
That is, while Kim discloses remaining in reactive risk avoidance (reactive MRM), it does not initiate ODD boundary-based prediction, section-by-section safe zone exploration, or full/half shoulder sequential exploration logic.
On the other hand, the claimed invention has structural and functional differences in that it performs section-by-section safe zone exploration based on preemptive prediction (preemptive MRM).”
Many of the elements recited in the above argument are not claimed specifically “section-by-section safe zone exploration” or “full/half shoulder sequential exploration logic.” and are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
First it should be noted that Kim not need to teach all limitations or elements in a 103 rejection.
Second Kim does teach “predicting whether a vehicle deviates from an operational design domain (ODD)” An ODD is merely a description of the conditions in which an autonomous vehicle (AV) is designed to operate safely. The expiration of the first timer of Kim in itself can be considered the as a deviation from the ODD. In other words the vehicle is predicting it can safely operate for X amount of time autonomously after the critical situation where X is the length of the timer.
Applicant also argues:
“Park merely discloses categorizing MRM into stopping stages (straight stop, in-lane stop, lane-change stop, shoulder stop, parking-lane stop) from Level 1 to 5 and initiating the selection of stopping location and method for each stage based on driving conditions and environmental information (sensors, maps, communication information, etc.).
However, Park's MRM stages are merely a classification of states, and the criteria for determining which MRM stage the vehicle will perform while driving are based on already detected failure types or road conditions.
Park does not include the concept of sequentially searching for a safe zone by setting spatial-temporal sections based on the "point in time when deviation is predicted."
Furthermore, Park's Level 4 (shoulder stop) or Level 5 (parking lane stop) only describes the type of stop and does not disclose a step-by-step search logic that attempts a complete shoulder stop in the first section and, if unsuccessful, attempts a partial shoulder stop in the second section.
Therefore, unlike Park, the claimed invention has technical distinctiveness in that it performs prediction-based real-time search and adaptive fallback transition.”
Many of the elements recited in the above argument are not claimed specifically “sequentially searching for a safe zone by setting spatial-temporal sections” or “step-by-step search logic that attempts a complete shoulder stop in the first section and, if unsuccessful, attempts a partial shoulder stop in the second section” and are not recited in the rejected claims (rather more generic limitations are used). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Park clearly teaches “sequentially searching for a safe zone under a first condition in a first section, and, if unavailable, searching for another safe zone under a second condition in a second section until the deviation time point.” as discussed in para [0152-0153] and para [0158] In Park a parking lane stop may be attempted by but access to the spot is blocked it will switch to a lower level MRM type which could be a shoulder stop. Search may be interpreted as physically moving the vehicle and scanning the environment sensors.
Park clearly teaches “wherein the MRM process comprises, when the deviation from a geographical boundary of the operational design domain is predicted” as discussed in para [0059] “Also, according to the embodiments, when the vehicle 100 approaches a boundary of an operational design domain (ODD), the minimal risk maneuver can be performed. The operational design may be a drivable domain designed to allow the vehicle 100 to perform the autonomous driving. For example, when the vehicle 100 approaches from the inside of the operational design domain to the outer boundary of the operational design domain, the vehicle 100 can perform the minimal risk maneuver.” This implies the boundary is geographical in nature and being prepared for prior to actually reaching it. Additionally This is supported by fig. 5 which states the geographic regions of an intersection and roundabout are out of ODD.
Regarding Applicants last set of arguments directed at Pendleton, examiner does not rely on Pendleton to teach the limitations of claim 1.
Thus applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the deviation from a geographical boundary" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed this is the same deviation that was recited earlier in claim 1. It is recommended to the same language throughout the claim to ensure clarity.
Claims 2-6 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210339774 A1, hereinafter known as Kim) in view of Park et al. (US 20230382371 A1, hereinafter known as Park).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches A method for providing a fallback for a failure situation occurring in autonomous driving performed by an autonomous driving system, the method comprising:
{abstract “A method for controlling autonomous driving in an autonomous vehicle includes detecting an autonomous driving-related critical situation during the autonomous driving, outputting a notification message requesting a control-right handover from an autonomous driving system to a human driver when the autonomous driving-related critical situation is detected, and activating a minimal risk maneuver (MRM) driving mode to deactivate the autonomous driving system when the control-right handover is not successful. In particular, when the minimal risk maneuver (MRM) driving mode is activated, the deactivated state of the autonomous driving system is maintained until an engine-restart of the autonomous vehicle is detected.”
Para [0026] “In one form, the autonomous driving-related critical situation may include a situation in which the autonomous driving system deviates from a predefined operation region such that a normal operation of the autonomous driving system is impossible.”
Explanation
}
predicting whether a vehicle deviates from an operational design domain (ODD) where the vehicle performs the autonomous driving on a route while the vehicle drives;
{Para [0094] “Referring to FIG. 4, the autonomous driving controller 100 may determine whether the vehicle encounters the autonomous driving-related critical situation in which autonomous driving is no longer possible while the autonomous driving function is activated (S410). In this connection, the autonomous driving-related critical situation refers to a situation in which a normal operation of an autonomous driving system is impossible. The autonomous driving controller 100 may detect the autonomous driving-related critical situation when the system deviates from a predefined operation region (or a predefined operational design region). For example, the autonomous driving controller 100 may determine, as the autonomous driving-related critical situation, a situation in which a high risk of accidents such as vehicle collision due to sudden deceleration of a front vehicle, interruption of another vehicle, and sudden lane change of a front vehicle occurs. Alternatively, the autonomous driving controller 100 may determine, as the autonomous driving-related critical situation, a situation in which vehicle control is desired to switch from the system to a human driver. However, the present disclosure is not limited thereto.”
}
and performing a minimal risk maneuver (MRM) process of controlling the vehicle to provide the fallback for the failure situation occurring in the autonomous driving based on a deviation point when the deviation is predicted.
{Para [0095-0098] “When the autonomous driving controller 100 detects the autonomous driving-related critical situation, the autonomous driving controller 100 may output the control-right handover requesting message and may start the first and second timers (S420). In this connection, the control-right handover requesting message may be a message requesting a control-right handover from the system to the human driver, and may be output through predetermined output means provided in the vehicle, for example, image output means such as a display, sound output means such as a speaker and a beeper, haptic means such as a vibration motor. However, the present disclosure is not limited thereto.
The autonomous driving controller 100 may determine whether the control-right handover has been completed before the first timer expires (S430).
When the control-right handover from the system to the human driver has been normally completed before the first timer expires, the autonomous driving controller 100 may convert the autonomous driving function to the deactivated state (S435).”
}
Kim does not teach, wherein the MRM process comprises, when the deviation from a geographical boundary of the operational design domain is predicted, sequentially searching for a safe zone under a first condition in a first section, and, if unavailable, searching for another safe zone under a second condition in a second section until the deviation time point.
However, Park teaches wherein the MRM process comprises, when the deviation from a geographical boundary of the operational design domain is predicted, sequentially searching for a safe zone under a first condition in a first section, and, if unavailable, searching for another safe zone under a second condition in a second section until the deviation time point.
{para [0059] “Also, according to the embodiments, when the vehicle 100 approaches a boundary of an operational design domain (ODD), the minimal risk maneuver can be performed. The operational design may be a drivable domain designed to allow the vehicle 100 to perform the autonomous driving. For example, when the vehicle 100 approaches from the inside of the operational design domain to the outer boundary of the operational design domain, the vehicle 100 can perform the minimal risk maneuver.” This implies the boundary is geographical in nature and being prepared for prior to actually reaching it. Additionally This is supported by fig. 5 which states the geographic regions of an intersection and roundabout are out of ODD
Para [0152-0154] “The level 4 MRM type is the shoulder stop in which longitudinal acceleration control and longitudinal deceleration control can be performed and lateral control can also be performed. The level 4 MRM type can determine a front target vehicle and route by using surrounding information such as sensors, map data, and communication information. The level 4 MRM type may be selected when it is possible to drive to the shoulder of a highway and when there is no obstacle on the shoulder. The acceleration control can also be performed when it is determined that the acceleration control is necessary in light of the flow of traffic to the shoulder.
The level 5 MRM type is the parking lane stop in which longitudinal acceleration control and longitudinal deceleration control can be performed and lateral control can also be performed. The level 5 MRM type can determine a front target vehicle and route by using surrounding information such as sensors, map data, and communication information. The level 5 MRM type may be selected when it is possible to drive to a parking space and when there is no obstacle in the parking space. The acceleration control can also be performed when it is determined that the acceleration control is necessary in light of the flow of traffic to the parking space.
Each of the MRM types described above may be performed within a predetermined execution time. Such execution time may include a minimum execution time and/or a maximum execution time. If the MRM cannot be performed within a predetermined execution time, the MRM type may be transitioned to a low-level type which can be performed immediately.”
Para [0158] “The MRM type may be transitioned to a low-level type. For example, a high-level MRM type may be changed to a low-level MRM type when defects in a vehicle component occur while the MRM is being performed, when the generated defects are deteriorated, when the lane change is impossible due to a change in traffic conditions, etc. The low-level transition of the MRM type may be determined based on state information of the components of the vehicle. Also, the low-level transition of the MRM type may be determined in consideration of the current speed of the vehicle and/or external surrounding information. For example, when the MRM is performed at a level higher than a predetermined level in a high-level MRM type, the MRM type may be maintained as the current high MRM type even though the MRM type must be transitioned to a low-level type. Alternatively, even though the MRM is performed at a predetermined level, the MRM type may be transitioned to a low-level type based on the surrounding information that there are vehicles around the vehicle of the driver. It is preferable that the MRM type which is changed to a low-level type is transitioned to the highest-level type based on the above-described state information of the components of the vehicle, vehicle speed, surrounding information, and the like.”
If there is an obstacle in the parking or it is not possible to navigate to the parking space the vehicle may instead merely perform a shoulder stop.
}
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Park’s MRM process because it improves safety and driving stability para [0007] “According to the present disclosure, even if a vehicle is in risk due to an event occurring during autonomous driving, the minimal risk maneuver capable of eliminating the risk can be performed. Accordingly, the vehicle can escape from the risk and the condition of the vehicle can be converted into a minimal risk condition, so that the driving stability of the vehicle can be further increased.”
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Park teaches The method of claim 1. Kim teaches wherein the MRM process includes making a request for a vehicle driver to intervene in the autonomous driving at a time point when the deviation is predicted or in advance from the time point, and
{Para [0095] “When the autonomous driving controller 100 detects the autonomous driving-related critical situation, the autonomous driving controller 100 may output the control-right handover requesting message and may start the first and second timers (S420). In this connection, the control-right handover requesting message may be a message requesting a control-right handover from the system to the human driver, and may be output through predetermined output means provided in the vehicle, for example, image output means such as a display, sound output means such as a speaker and a beeper, haptic means such as a vibration motor. However, the present disclosure is not limited thereto.”
}
changing a driving mode to a manual driving mode when a vehicle control is given over to the driver by the driver intervention (or override).
{Para [0096-0098] “The autonomous driving controller 100 may determine whether the control-right handover has been completed before the first timer expires (S430).
When the control-right handover from the system to the human driver has been normally completed before the first timer expires, the autonomous driving controller 100 may convert the autonomous driving function to the deactivated state (S435).”
}
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Park teaches The method of claim 2. Kim teaches wherein the MRM process includes instructing an emergency stop of the vehicle when the driver intervention is impossible.
{Para [0098] “When, based on the result of the determination at 430, the first timer has expired, the autonomous driving controller 100 may activate the minimal risk maneuver (MRM) mode (S440).”
Para [0029] “In one form, when the first timer expires, and thus the minimal risk maneuver (MRM) driving mode is activated, the processor may control the speed controller to perform deceleration control until the autonomous vehicle is stopped.”
}
Regarding Claim 4, Kim in view of Park teaches The method of claim 3. Park teaches wherein the MRM process is classified into necessary control operations based on a MRM type that determines a stop type by a diagnosis result of a failure cause of the vehicle.
{Para [0073-0077] “When there is a request for the minimal risk maneuver, the vehicle 100 can determine a failure state (S120). According to the embodiments, the vehicle 100 may monitor the state of each of the components of the vehicle 100 and identify the failed components. The vehicle 100 may monitor the state of each of the components of the vehicle 100 in real time. The vehicle 100 may determine which sensor is currently available (or operable) among the sensors 110.
Also, the vehicle 100 can determine a failure state and a cause (or situation) of the failure state. For example, the vehicle 100 can additionally determine what causes the determined failure state.
The vehicle 100 may select a type of the minimal risk maneuver (S130). According to the embodiments, the vehicle 100 may select the type of the minimal risk maneuver suitable for a current failure state based on the determination result of the failure state.
The type of the minimal risk maneuver may include stopping the vehicle, controlling the steering of the vehicle, maintaining a lane, providing visual, audible and tactile notifications, decelerating the vehicle, accelerating the vehicle, and initiating/ending the autonomous driving, turning off the vehicle, transmitting an emergency signal, controlling a hazard warning light, speed reduction warning, controlling a brake light, transferring control authority to another passenger, and remote control.
The vehicle 100 can initiate the minimal risk maneuver by using the selected type of the minimal risk maneuver (S140). According to the embodiments, the vehicle 100 can control the vehicle 100 according to the selected type of the minimum risk maneuver. For example, the processor 130 of the vehicle 100 may transmit a control command corresponding to the selected type of the minimum risk maneuver to the controller 120, and the controller 120 may control the vehicle 100 in accordance with the control command.”
}
Regarding Claim 5, Kim in view of Park teaches The method of claim 4. Park further teaches wherein the MRM process requests safe zone information required based on the MRM type, and generates a route for the vehicle to stop on a received safe zone.
{Para [0148-0154] “As described above, the MRM type may include first to fifth five types.
The level 1 MRM type is the straight stop in which only the longitudinal deceleration control is performed, and the lateral control is not performed. According to the level 1 MRM type, the lateral control is impossible. For example, the level 1 MRM type may be selected in the case of a lane detection failure, control failure of a lateral actuator (steering), etc. When the MRM is performed according to the level 1 MRM type, the vehicle may deviate from the boundary of a lane or may deviate to the outside of the road. Therefore, the level 1 MRM type may not allow control to accelerate the vehicle.
The level 2 MRM type is the in-lane stop in which both longitudinal deceleration control and lateral control can be performed. The level 2 MRM type can determine a front target vehicle and route by using surrounding information such as sensors, map data, and communication information. The level 2 MRM type may be selected when it is possible to control the lane change but is not possible to drive a distance larger than a predetermined distance.
The level 3 MRM type is the lane change plus stop in traffic lane, in which longitudinal deceleration control and longitudinal acceleration control can be performed and lateral control can also be performed. The level 3 MRM type can determine a front target vehicle and route by using surrounding information such as sensors, map data, and communication information. The level 3 MRM type may be selected when it is not possible to move to a potential stopping area that is out of the flow of traffic. For example, the level 3 MRM type may be selected when the ADS system is operating normally and the potential stopping area cannot be detected or when it is impossible to drive to the potential stopping area by the ADS system due to time and/or system limit. The acceleration control can also be performed for stable lane change. Whether to change lanes or the number of lanes to be changed may be determined according to circumstances.
The level 4 MRM type is the shoulder stop in which longitudinal acceleration control and longitudinal deceleration control can be performed and lateral control can also be performed. The level 4 MRM type can determine a front target vehicle and route by using surrounding information such as sensors, map data, and communication information. The level 4 MRM type may be selected when it is possible to drive to the shoulder of a highway and when there is no obstacle on the shoulder. The acceleration control can also be performed when it is determined that the acceleration control is necessary in light of the flow of traffic to the shoulder.
The level 5 MRM type is the parking lane stop in which longitudinal acceleration control and longitudinal deceleration control can be performed and lateral control can also be performed. The level 5 MRM type can determine a front target vehicle and route by using surrounding information such as sensors, map data, and communication information. The level 5 MRM type may be selected when it is possible to drive to a parking space and when there is no obstacle in the parking space. The acceleration control can also be performed when it is determined that the acceleration control is necessary in light of the flow of traffic to the parking space.
Each of the MRM types described above may be performed within a predetermined execution time. Such execution time may include a minimum execution time and/or a maximum execution time. If the MRM cannot be performed within a predetermined execution time, the MRM type may be transitioned to a low-level type which can be performed immediately.”
}
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210339774 A1, hereinafter known as Kim) in view of park et al. (US 20230382371 A1, hereinafter known as Park) and Pendleton et al. (US 20230091987 A1, hereinafter known as Pendleton).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim in view of Park teaches The method of claim 5
Kim does not teach, further comprising receiving a remote request to perform the MRM process from a control server when the deviation from the ODD or occurrence of the failure situation is determined as a monitoring result while the vehicle drives, wherein the control server provides the safe zone information when making the request to perform the MRM process.
However, Park teaches further comprising receiving a remote request to perform the MRM process from a control server when the deviation from the ODD or occurrence of the failure situation is determined as a monitoring result while the vehicle drives,
{Para [0115-0116] “OED framework 600 further includes arbitrator system 625. Arbitrator system 625 is configured to receive perception map(s) 607 and the minimum perception zone data 611. In an embodiment, arbitrator system 625 is further configured to receive trajectory data 609 directly from planning system 404. Arbitrator system 625 then compares perception map(s) 607 and minimum perception zone data 611 (and, in an embodiment, trajectory data 609) to identify whether the AV is operating within its ODD. Specifically, arbitrator system 625 is configured to assign a first level of risk to an output of perception system 402. In some embodiments, arbitrator system 625 is configured to assign a first level of risk of non-compliance with a functional requirement related to the trajectory based on sensor data 606.
Arbitrator system 625 further assigns a second level of risk of non-compliance with the functional requirement to the output (e.g., minimum perception zone data 611) of assessment system 620. Arbitrator system 625 calculates a total level of risk based on the assigned first and second levels of risk. Based on the total level of risk, arbitrator system 625 identifies whether the AV is in a safe state. An example of a safe state is when the AV is able to perform the assigned trajectory/maneuver or navigate the assigned trajectory/maneuver within the ODD of the AV. An example of an unsafe state is when the requirements of the trajectory/maneuver exceed the functional capabilities of the AV. If arbitrator system 625 identifies that the AV is in an unsafe state, it outputs unsafe indicator data 616 to an intervention request system 630, which generates and sends/transmits an intervention request to, e.g., remote AV system 114 for RVA intervention or to planning system 404 and/or AV control system 408 for an MRM intervention.”
The arbitrator system and intervention request system can be remote as discussed in para [0109] “Referring to FIG. 6, FIG. 6 is an example OED framework. In some embodiments, one or more of the elements described with respect to OED framework 600 are performed (e.g., completely, partially, and/or the like) by one or more vehicles 102 (e.g., one or more devices of vehicles 102). Additionally, or alternatively, one or more elements described with respect to OED framework 600 can be performed (e.g., completely, partially, and/or the like) by another device or group of devices separate from, or including, vehicles 102 such as one or more of the other devices of any of FIGS. 1, 2, 3, and 4.”
}
wherein the control server provides the safe zone information when making the request to perform the MRM process.
{Para [0119] “In one embodiment, intervention request 612 is, for example, a request to an RVA operator or teleoperator for data associated with control of the vehicle. For example, intervention request 612 can include a request for data upon which control system 408 can act to cause the AV to take one or more actions. In another embodiment, intervention request 612 is a MRM which can be a pre-identified maneuver such as the AV slowing, stopping, pulling over, etc., to place the AV back into a safe state. In another embodiment, intervention request 612 can include a request for a degraded mode operation (DMO) task such as reduced speed operation.”
para [0160] “The process 1100 further includes identifying, at 1120 based on the PVM, a trajectory that is to be traversed by the at least one vehicle. Element 1120 can be performed by, for example, planning system 404, or by intervention request system 630. In an embodiment, the trajectory is similar to trajectory 520, described above. In another embodiment, the trajectory relates to a maneuver such as a MRM, an RVA request, a DMO, etc., as described above.”
As discussed in para [0109] the intervention request system can be a remote system. If intervention request system is providing the trajectory to stop or pull over it can be considered as providing the safe zone information when making the request to perform the MRM process
}
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim in view of Park to incorporate the teachings of Pendleton to classify the MRM process because it improves safety para [0056-0058] “Some of the advantages of the techniques described above include provision of a OED framework that efficiently addresses complexities involved in operation of an AV in an environment across various driving scenarios. In a specific example herein, the complexities relate to different driving scenarios where multiple factors (e.g., lighting, weather conditions, other objects that are in or near the road, characteristics of the road, etc.) influence the ODD of the autonomous system. The OED framework allows a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) or other maneuver or intervention is triggered based on a holistic analysis of a driving scenario. Another advantage is that embodiments herein provide a framework to model sensor perception capability and performance under different conditions. Such conditions include environmental conditions (e.g., fog, rain, sun glare, etc.), sensor-visibility conditions (e.g., blockage of the sensor by a foreign object such as mud), occlusion-related conditions (e.g., the detection of an object by the sensor), or sensor-structural conditions (e.g., the type or placement of the sensor). By identifying this OED framework, the model of the sensor perception capability is usable by the autonomous system to ascertain operational capabilities of the autonomous system in different scenarios so that the autonomous system may be operated within those capabilities. Another advantage is that embodiments herein provide a quantitative measure of non-compliance risk with respect to safety, regulatory and comfort rules under different well-defined driving scenarios, while still allowing for direct intervention assignment in response to ill-defined situations (e.g., anomalous events) or prolonged immobility (e.g., “stuck” detection). Multiple situations or scenarios are evaluated concurrently (e.g., lane change while navigating an intersection). Internal state agnostic metrics are generalized for both compliance check of current state and of predicted future states. Applicability of the situation assessment is independent of underlying decision making algorithm(s). The situation assessment can be used to assess multiple concurrent trajectory proposals.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ishioka et al. (US 20200207355 A1) teaches in the abstract “In the case that merging into a main line is impossible, if a vehicle stop position exists outside of a road more ahead of a vanishing point of a merging lane, a vehicle stop control unit, which causes a host vehicle to stop at an appropriate vehicle stop position, causes the host vehicle to stop outside of the road, and if the vehicle stop position does not exist outside of the road, the vehicle stop control unit causes the host vehicle to stop within the merging lane.”
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 ALEXANDER MATTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4296. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-6:00.
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 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.
/A.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668