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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No additional information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were submitted for consideration.
Status of Application
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim 5 is amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
No claims are cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claims 1 and 13 are independent claims.
Claims 1-13 will be examined.
This Final Office action is in response to the “Claims” dated 03/03/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments and amended claims, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to claims 1-13, have been fully considered and Applicant' s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Regarding Objection to Drawings, the applicant’s response has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Objection to Drawings is withdrawn.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, and the remarks, “none of the cited references teaches or suggests the above feature as claimed, ” the Office respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded the mapping of paragraphs and/or lines from prior art is provided by the Examiner as a courtesy to the Applicant, and ‘subject matter as a whole’ should always be considered in determining the obviousness of an invention under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103.
The prior art Sarett discloses/teaches “failsafe trajectory” within paragraphs [0038], backup system 340 (i.e. a complementary controller) includes the parallel autonomy system (PAS) 342… [0043], “when main autonomy (¶¶ [0036-0037], see FIG. 5, main autonomy system 510) provides a planner trajectory that would lead to an unavoidable collision, the PAS 342 may intervene,” [0052], “PAS 342 identifies a likely collision… to determine whether a collision is likely,” [0053], “in response to the trajectory is likely to result in a collision, instructions are provided from PAS 342 to propulsion system 310 to cause autonomous vehicle 110 to avoid a collision…” “alter its planned trajectory, (i.e. failsafe trajectory), such as by braking, stopping, performing an evasive maneuver, and/or navigating along a new or different trajectory.” The Sarett paragraph [0050], cited by applicant in remarks is an additional element of Sarett which provides collision avoidance (FAS 344) as secondary to the PAS 342, see paragraph [0038], “Failover autonomy system 344 is arranged to be triggered substantially only when a failover trajectory, of autonomous vehicle 110 is likely to be unsafe,” wherein the failover trajectory is provided by “PAS 342 may intervene.”
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant' s arguments.
Therefore, it remains the Office’s stance that the combination of Sarett, and Herbach disclose/teach the claimed subject matter as currently presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2, and 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SARETT et al., US 20210094589, herein further known as Sarett, in view of HERBACH et al., US 20170274901, herein further known as Herbach.
Regarding claim 1, Sarett discloses operating an autonomous vehicle (AV) (¶¶ [0014-0028], [0031-0041], [0051-0056]) comprising: a primary controller (¶ [0036], see also FIG. 3, processor 0305, and FIG. 5, main system 510, controller 330) receiving a sensor data from a primary sensor system of the AV (¶¶ [0018-0021], [0024-0026], [0037], [0048], [0051], sensor system 320, see also FIG. 3, and FIG. 5), providing a first plurality of instructions to an AV platform for operating the AV in an autonomous mode along a planned path (¶¶ [0019-0020]) based on the received sensor data (¶¶ [0018-0021]), and providing information to a complementary controller (¶¶ [0018], [0025-0026], [0035-0040], back-up system 340, including parallel autonomy system (PAS) 342 and the failover autonomy system (FAS) 344, see also FIG. 5), the information comprising a fallback monitoring region and a failsafe trajectory (¶¶ [0026], [0050], [0055], planned failover trajectory/plan (e.g. failover trajectory/plan is within the sensed vehicle travel area (i.e. fallback monitoring region)), wherein the failsafe trajectory when followed by the AV will bring the AV safely to a stop within the fallback monitoring region (¶¶ [0026], failover trajectory may include a trajectory that ends with autonomous vehicle 110 coming to a stop, decelerating, moving to a shoulder of a roadway, and braking to a halt, [0044], take over control of the autonomous vehicle to allow the autonomous vehicle to safely come to a stop, [0050], planned failover trajectory for the vehicle may be likely to result in a collision, or that it would be prudent for the vehicle to come to a stop, see also claim 7); and by the complementary controller (¶¶ [0018], [0025-0026], [0035-0040], back-up system 340, see also FIG. 5), in response to detecting occurrence of a triggering event (¶¶ [0026], probability that a collision will occur, [0044], planned path of an autonomous vehicle appears to be likely to result in a collision, [0050], planned failover path for the vehicle may result in a collision, [0055], planned failover trajectory to appear to be likely to lead to a collision, [0076], trajectory is deemed as likely to result in a collision due to a failure that is detected in the main autonomy system), causing the AV platform to initiate a failover stop action to bring the AV to a stop by following the failsafe trajectory (¶¶ [0026], failover trajectory may include a trajectory that ends with autonomous vehicle 110 coming to a stop, decelerating, moving to a shoulder of a roadway, and braking to a halt, [0044], take over control of the autonomous vehicle to allow the autonomous vehicle to safely come to a stop, [0050], planned failover trajectory for the vehicle may be likely to result in a collision, or that it would be prudent for the vehicle to come to a stop, see also claim 7).
Furthermore, Herbach teaches operating an autonomous vehicle (AV) (¶¶ [0015-0021]), receiving a sensor data from a primary sensor system of the AV (¶¶ [0032-0034], [0037]), providing a first plurality of instructions to an AV platform for operating the AV in an autonomous mode along a planned path based on the received sensor data (¶¶ [0020-0021], [0117-0128]) fallback monitoring region and a failsafe trajectory, wherein the failsafe trajectory when followed by the AV will bring the AV safely to a stop within the fallback monitoring region (¶¶ [0003-0005], travel within the region while reducing the speed of the autonomous vehicle, functions may also comprise determining instructions for pulling over and stopping the autonomous vehicle in the region in accordance with the determined trajectory, [0019], region is identified and determined to be suitable for pulling over the autonomous vehicle, bring the autonomous vehicle's speed down to zero within the region, [0021], continuously identify safe regions for pullover, [0109], based on a speed of the autonomous vehicle and based on the region, determining a braking profile for reducing the speed of the autonomous vehicle while travelling within the region, and braking profile may be determined by the computing device so as to quickly navigate the autonomous vehicle off of the road or to a stopping location, see also claims 8-11)
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sarett the fallback monitoring region and a failsafe trajectory, wherein the failsafe trajectory when followed by the AV will bring the AV safely to a stop within the fallback monitoring region as taught by Herbach.
One would be motivated to modify Sarett in view of Herbach for the reasons stated in Herbach paragraph [0017], a more robust system and method including an identified region which is safe or otherwise suitable for pulling over the autonomous vehicle for the best possible safety of the occupants.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sarett, and Herbach, disclose/teach all elements of claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Sarett discloses providing, by the primary controller (¶ [0036], see also FIG. 3, processor 0305, and FIG. 5, main system 510, controller 330), the first plurality of instructions to the AV platform for operating the AV in the autonomous mode along the planned path (¶¶ [0018-0021]) comprises providing the first plurality of instructions to the AV platform via the complementary controller (¶¶ [0018], [0025-0026], [0035-0040], back-up system 340, including parallel autonomy system (PAS) 342 and the failover autonomy system (FAS) 344, see also FIG. 5, wherein ¶ [0038] discloses, “PAS 342 and/or FAS 344 are partially or wholly duplicative of main autonomy system 510”); and in response to detecting occurrence of a triggering event (¶¶ [0026], probability that a collision will occur, [0044], planned path of an autonomous vehicle appears to be likely to result in a collision, [0050], planned failover path for the vehicle may result in a collision, [0055], planned failover trajectory to appear to be likely to lead to a collision, [0076], trajectory is deemed as likely to result in a collision due to a failure that is detected in the main autonomy system), by the complementary controller (¶ [0038] discloses, “PAS 342 and/or FAS 344 are partially or wholly duplicative of main autonomy system 510”): stopping provision of the first plurality of instructions (wherein the stopping provision of the first plurality of instructions must occur due to a failure that is detected in the main autonomy system) , received from the primary controller, to the AV platform; and providing a second plurality of instructions to cause the AV platform to initiate the failover stop action (¶¶ [0026], failover trajectory may include a trajectory that ends with autonomous vehicle 110 coming to a stop, decelerating, moving to a shoulder of a roadway, and braking to a halt, [0044], take over control of the autonomous vehicle to allow the autonomous vehicle to safely come to a stop, [0050], planned failover trajectory for the vehicle may be likely to result in a collision, or that it would be prudent for the vehicle to come to a stop, see also claim 7).
Regarding claim 13, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 1. The system taught/disclosed in claim 13 can clearly perform the methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sarett, and Herbach, further in view of LETWIN et al., US 10061313, herein further known as Letwin.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sarett, and Herbach, disclose/teach all elements of claim 1 above.
Sarett discloses detecting the occurrence of a triggering event (¶¶ [0026], probability that a collision will occur, [0044], planned path of an autonomous vehicle appears to be likely to result in a collision, [0050], planned failover path for the vehicle may result in a collision, [0055], planned failover trajectory to appear to be likely to lead to a collision, [0076], trajectory is deemed as likely to result in a collision due to a failure that is detected in the main autonomy system)
However, Sarett does not explicitly state event based on information received from at least one of the following: a diagnostics system configured to monitor health of the primary controller or a diagnostics system configured to monitor health of the AV platform.
Letwin teaches event based on information received from at least one of the following: a diagnostics system configured to monitor health of the primary controller or a diagnostics system configured to monitor health of the AV platform (col 11, lines 10-30).
Furthermore, Letwin teaches elements from claim 1, operating an autonomous vehicle (AV) (claims 1-11), by a primary controller (claim 1): receiving a sensor data from a primary sensor system of the AV (claim 1, see also FIG. 1), providing a first plurality of instructions to an AV platform for operating the AV in an autonomous mode along a planned path based on the received sensor data (claim 1, see also FIG. 3), providing information to a complementary controller (column 3, line 1-25, primary control system may provide input for the auxiliary control units, see also FIG. 1), information comprising a fallback monitoring region (column 7, line 20-35, monitor regions adjacent the vehicle (e.g., adjacent lane, behind vehicle, cross-lane traffic, surrounding roadside region, etc.)), and a failsafe trajectory, wherein the failsafe trajectory when followed by the AV will bring the AV safely to a stop within the fallback monitoring region (column 8, lines 20-27); and by the complementary controller, in response to detecting occurrence of a triggering event , causing the AV platform to initiate a failover stop action to bring the AV to a stop by following the failsafe trajectory (column 4, 54-65, trajectory data 155 may include future ( e.g., 1 second ahead, 5 seconds ahead, location points of the vehicle 10 along the planned trajectory, (i.e. fallback monitoring region), column 6, line 58- column 7, line 6, column 7, line 20-35, and column 8, lines 20-27, wherein the triggering event is obstruction in front of vehicle, column 13, lines 5-30 ).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sarett the event based on information received from at least one of the following: a diagnostics system configured to monitor health of the primary controller or a diagnostics system configured to monitor health of the AV platform as taught by Letwin.
One would be motivated to modify Sarett in view of Letwin for the reasons stated in Letwin, More robust system and method to provide redundancy as to specific and critical safety situations which may be encountered when the autonomous vehicle is in operation and avoid an imminent safety concern.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7, 9, and 11-12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sarett, and Herbach, further in view of Van Heukelom et al., US 20200174481, herein further known as Van Heukelom, further in view of LETWIN et al., US 10061313, herein further known as Letwin, .
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sarett, and Herbach, disclose/teach all elements of claim 1 above.
Sarett discloses the complementary controller receiving a plurality of failsafe trajectories from the primary controller; in response to detecting occurrence of the triggering event, selecting one of the plurality of failsafe trajectories as a trajectory for the fail over stop action by: monitoring the fallback monitoring region ; the complementary controller: receiving a plurality of failsafe trajectories from the primary controller; in response to detecting occurrence of the triggering event, selecting one of the plurality of failsafe trajectories as a trajectory for the fail over stop action by: monitoring the fallback monitoring region (see rejections of at least claims 1 above).
However, Sarett does not explicitly state discarding one or more of the plurality of failsafe trajectories in response to detecting an object in the fallback monitoring region that intersects with the one or more of the plurality of failsafe trajectories.
Van Heukelom teaches discarding one or more of the plurality of failsafe trajectories in response to detecting an object in the fallback monitoring region that intersects with the one or more of the plurality of failsafe trajectories (¶¶ [0023], considering predicted locations of objects, generate more accurate and/or safer trajectories (i.e. failsafe trajectories), and evaluating region probabilities individually to determine if a region probability is above a threshold may allow a planning system to discard unsafe trajectories).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sarett the discarding one or more of the plurality of failsafe trajectories in response to detecting an object in the fallback monitoring region that intersects with the one or more of the plurality of failsafe trajectories as taught by Van Heukelom.
One would be motivated to modify Sarett in view of Van Heukelom for the reasons stated in Van Heukelom paragraph [0023],more robust system and method to allow a computing system to consider additional alternative trajectories, thereby improving safety outcomes
Furthermore, Letwin teaches discarding one or more of the plurality of failsafe trajectories in response to detecting an object in the fallback monitoring region that intersects with the one or more of the plurality of failsafe trajectories (column 7, 20-55, wherein the control units are optimized to detect specific conditions, adjacent lane occupancy, imminent collision (front, rear, side), cross-traffic, and generate a vehicle response output 137 automatically, upon detecting a particular sensor condition generate a vehicle response output 137 automatically, upon detecting a particular sensor condition (i.e. discarding one or more of the plurality of failsafe trajectories).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sarett the discarding one or more of the plurality of failsafe trajectories in response to detecting an object in the fallback monitoring region that intersects with the one or more of the plurality of failsafe trajectories as taught by Letwin.
One would be motivated to modify Sarett in view of Letwin for the reasons stated in Letwin, More robust system and method to provide redundancy as to specific and critical safety situations which may be encountered when the autonomous vehicle is in operation and avoid an imminent safety concern.
Regarding claim 5, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claims 1-4. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 5 can clearly perform the methods of claims 1-4. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-4 above.
Sarett discloses control operations of the AV upon occurrence of a triggering event without reliance on the first plurality of instructions (¶¶ [0035], primary autonomy system, has a failure, an error, or a bug, wherein at least “bug” makes primary instructions inoperable, therefore secondary instructions must be used), [0064-0065], failover and parallel autonomy system for autonomous vehicles (e.g. vehicle control instructions data)).
Furthermore, Letwin teaches control operations of the AV by following the failsafe trajectory upon occurrence of a triggering event without reliance on the first plurality of instructions (column 11, lines 2-10).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sarett the control operations of the AV upon occurrence of a triggering event without reliance on the first plurality of instructions as taught by Letwin.
One would be motivated to modify Sarett in view of Letwin for the reasons stated in Letwin, More robust system and method to provide redundancy as to specific and critical safety situations which may be encountered when the autonomous vehicle is in operation and avoid an imminent safety concern.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sarett, Herbach, Van Heukelom, and Letwin, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 5 above.
Sarett discloses calculating a region (¶¶ [0026], [0044], upstream trajectory (i.e. fallback monitoring region) of likely intersection (ROLi) within the fallback monitoring region (¶¶ [0026], [0044], upstream trajectory (i.e. fallback monitoring region), [0026], [0052], [0077], [0087] probability that a collision will occur).
However, Sarett does not explicitly state a union of planned AV footprints over a next N seconds; and providing the calculated ROLi to the controller.
Van Heukelom teaches a union of planned AV footprints over a next N seconds; and providing the calculated ROLi to the controller (¶¶ [0004], [0011], [0013-0015], [0017], [0021-0022], [0034], discretized probability distribution can be generated to represent any point or period of time in the future, such as 1 second, 2 seconds, 5 seconds, etc. in the future, probability distribution associated with a plurality of objects, where a region probability is related to (e.g., proportional) to a collision risk for the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sarett the union of planned AV footprints over a next N seconds; and providing the calculated ROLi to the controller as taught by Van Heukelom.
One would be motivated to modify Sarett in view of Van Heukelom for the reasons stated in Van Heukelom paragraph [0023],more robust system and method to allow a computing system to consider additional alternative trajectories, thereby improving safety outcomes
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sarett, Herbach, Van Heukelom, and Letwin, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 5 above.
Sarett discloses further the plurality of failsafe trajectories (¶¶ [0026], [0044], upstream trajectory (i.e. fallback monitoring region) [0050], [0055], planned failover trajectory/plan (e.g. failover trajectory/plan is within the sensed vehicle travel area (i.e. fallback monitoring region)) based on at least one of the following: current speed of the AV; current acceleration of the AV; constraints relating to deceleration of the AV; heading of the AV; objects in the AV's environment and information relating to the objects (¶¶ [0053, 0055], trajectory to appear to be likely to lead to a collision is avoiding object ; environmental conditions; information relating to the planned path; or information relating to a surrounding environment of the AV, wherein the plurality of failsafe trajectories are determined such that they follow the planned path and bring the AV to a safe stop within a certain distance from a current position of the AV (¶¶ [0026], failover trajectory may include a trajectory that ends with autonomous vehicle 110 coming to a stop, decelerating, moving to a shoulder of a roadway, and braking to a halt, [0044], take over control of the autonomous vehicle to allow the autonomous vehicle to safely come to a stop, [0050], planned failover trajectory for the vehicle may be likely to result in a collision, or that it would be prudent for the vehicle to come to a stop, [0079], given region may be identified based on its distance from the autonomous vehicle (i.e. certain distance), [0084-0085], lateral distance, threshold distance, buffer distance, [0090], longitudinal distance threshold from the autonomous vehicle and/or within a lateral distance threshold from the autonomous vehicle, see also claims 16-17).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sarett, Herbach, Van Heukelom, and Letwin, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 5 above.
Sarett discloses further failsafe trajectories are located within the fallback monitoring region (¶¶ [0026], [0044], upstream trajectory (i.e. fallback monitoring region) [0050], [0055], planned failover trajectory/plan (e.g. failover trajectory/plan is within the sensed vehicle travel area (i.e. fallback monitoring region)).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sarett, Herbach, Van Heukelom, and Letwin, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 5 above.
Sarett discloses further mimicking operations of the secondary controller by analyzing the second set of sensor data and information received from the secondary controller; and providing instructions to the AV platform for operating the AV in a manner that prevents or delays initiation of a collision mitigation action by the complementary controller (¶¶ [0018], [0025-0026], [0035-0040], back-up system 340, including parallel autonomy system (PAS) 342 and the failover autonomy system (FAS) 344, PAS 342 and/or FAS 344 are partially or wholly duplicative of main autonomy system 510 (e.g., including similar or same components), see also FIG. 5, and 6).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sarett, Herbach, Van Heukelom, and Letwin, further in view of MAYSER, US 20170372150, herein further known as Mayser.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sarett, Herbach, Van Heukelom, and Letwin, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 5 above.
Sarett discloses the fallback monitoring region (¶¶ [0026], [0044], upstream trajectory (i.e. fallback monitoring region)) and complementary controller (¶¶ [0018], [0025-0026], [0035-0040], back-up system 340, including parallel autonomy system (PAS) 342 and the failover autonomy system (FAS) 344, see also FIG. 5).
However, Sarett does not explicitly state calculating a region of inevitable intersection (ROIi) within the monitoring region as a union of the AV's footprint over a left highest possible curvature trajectory and a right highest possible curvature trajectory at a current speed of the AV; and providing the calculated ROIi to the controller.
Mayser teaches calculating a region of inevitable intersection (ROIi) within the monitoring region as a union of the AV's footprint over a left highest possible curvature trajectory and a right highest possible curvature trajectory at a current speed of the AV; and providing the calculated ROIi to controller (¶ [0058], see also FIG. 2, see also claim 15).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sarett the calculating a region of inevitable intersection (ROIi) within the monitoring region as a union of the AV's footprint over a left highest possible curvature trajectory and a right highest possible curvature trajectory at a current speed of the AV; and providing the calculated ROIi to the controller as taught by Mayser.
One would be motivated to modify Sarett in view of Mayser for the reasons stated in Mayser paragraph [0009], more robust system and method to prevent an accident or at least to minimize the consequences of an accident.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sarett, Herbach, Van Heukelom, and Letwin, further in view of LAINE, et al., US 20220161782, herein further known as Laine.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sarett, Herbach, Van Heukelom, and Letwin, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 5 above.
Sarett discloses the fallback monitoring region of one or more trajectories (¶¶ [0026], [0044], upstream trajectory (i.e. fallback monitoring region), FAS 344 may generate one or more failover trajectories of the AV (¶¶ [0014-0028], [0031-0041], [0051-0056]).
However, Sarett does not explicitly state the region as a union of swept areas.
Laine teaches the region as a union of swept areas (¶¶ [0037], [0055], potentially swept area, [0066], geometry of the vehicle influences the swept area, [0081]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sarett the region as a union of swept areas as taught by Laine.
One would be motivated to modify Sarett in view of Laine for the reasons stated in Laine paragraph [0005-0007], [0017-0018], more robust method and system wherein vehicle control by the control unit can be improved based on the new input to determine allowable vehicle state spaces of the vehicle such that safe stop maneuvers can always be safely executed.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sarett, Herbach, Van Heukelom, and Letwin, further in view of HENKE, et al., US 20250100581, herein further known as Henke.
Regarding claim 10 the combination of Sarett, Herbach, Van Heukelom, and Letwin, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 9 above.
However, Sarett does not explicitly state assigning a score to each of the plurality of failsafe trajectories, the score being indicative of a quantitative metric associated with a failsafe trajectory.
Henke teaches assigning a score to each of the plurality of failsafe trajectories, the score being indicative of a quantitative metric associated with a failsafe trajectory. (¶¶ [0137-0139], [0157-0160], see also claim 9).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Sarett the assigning a score to each of the plurality of failsafe trajectories, the score being indicative of a quantitative metric associated with a failsafe trajectory. as taught by Henke.
One would be motivated to modify Sarett in view of Henke for the reasons stated in Henke paragraph [0002], more robust method and system to drive a vehicle autonomously and safely without supervision by understanding its surroundings in order to make safe and effective behavior decisions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights