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 the amendment filed 02/10/2026. As directed, claims 21, 28, 30-32, 34-36, and 38-40 were amended. Claims 1-20 were previously canceled. Accordingly, claims 21-41 are currently pending in this application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 40, line 9, it appears Applicant intended “the autonomous vehicle wherein the first actuation system” to read --the autonomous vehicle; wherein the first actuation system--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 21-25, 28-35, and 38-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauler et al. (US PGPub. No. 2015/0012166) in view of Phillips et al. (US Patent No. 10,730,531).
Regarding claim 21, Hauler teaches an autonomous vehicle [Hauler 3] comprising:
a first actuation system [Hauler 9, 10, 11] and a second actuation system [Hauler 14, 15, 16], wherein the first actuation system comprises a first braking system [Hauler 10] and a first steering system [Hauler 11], and wherein the second actuation system comprises a second braking system [Hauler 15] and a second steering system [Hauler 16] (Hauler Figure 2; ¶0018-0019; Hauler’s longitudinal dynamics actuators are understood to include a braking system, and Hauler’s transverse-dynamics-influencing actuators are understood to include a steering system);
a motion planning system [Hauler 8, 13] configured to generate motion plans for the autonomous vehicle and transmit the motion plans to a control system configured to control the autonomous vehicle via at least one of the first actuation system or the second actuation system (Hauler ¶0018-0019); and
a fault detection system [Hauler 17, 18] configured to: (1) detect faults in the first actuation system and the second actuation system and (2) upon detection of a fault in the first actuation system, instruct the control system to control the autonomous vehicle via the second actuation system (Hauler ¶0017-0019);
but appears to be silent on the vehicle further wherein the motion plans are generated by the motion planning system based at least in part on data indicative of a predicted motion of one or more objects within a surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle.
Phillips, however, teaches a machine-learning based vehicle motion control system wherein motion plans are generated based at least in part on data indicative of a predicted motion of one or more objects within a surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle (Phillips Col. 13, lines 36-55). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Hauler in view of Phillips. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Hauler, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include motion plans being generated based at least in part on data indicative of a predicted motion of one or more objects within a surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle, as doing so was a known way of safely and efficiently maneuvering around objects within a surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle, as recognized by Phillips (Phillips Col. 13, lines 36-55).
Regarding claim 22, Hauler in view of Phillips teaches the autonomous vehicle of claim 21, wherein the control system is further configured to: upon the detection of a fault in the second actuation system, control the autonomous vehicle via the first actuation system (Hauler ¶0017-0019).
Regarding claim 23, Hauler in view of Phillips teaches the autonomous vehicle of claim 21, further comprising:
a localization system [Hauler 7, 12] configured to determine a location of the autonomous vehicle within an environment of the autonomous vehicle (Hauler ¶0018-0019).
Regarding claim 24, Hauler in view of Phillips teaches the autonomous vehicle of claim 21, further comprising:
a perception system [Hauler 7, 12] configured to detect states of objects within an environment of the autonomous vehicle, wherein the motion planning system is configured to generate motion plans for the autonomous vehicle based on the states of the objects (Hauler ¶0017-0019; Phillips Col. 13, lines 36-55).
Regarding claim 25, Hauler in view of Phillips teaches the autonomous vehicle of claim 21, wherein the fault comprises at least one of: (i) a fault associated with a steering system of the autonomous vehicle, or (ii) a fault associated with a braking system of the autonomous vehicle (Hauler ¶0017-0019).
Regarding claim 28, Hauler in view of Phillips teaches the autonomous vehicle of claim 21, wherein the motion plans respectively comprise a trajectory for stopping the autonomous vehicle (Hauler ¶0017, ¶0019).
Regarding claim 29, Hauler in view of Phillips teaches the autonomous vehicle of claim 21, wherein the first actuation system is associated with a first control lane [Hauler 9, 10, 11] and the second actuation system is associated with a second control lane [Hauler 14, 15, 16].
Regarding claim 30, Hauler in view of Phillips teaches the autonomous vehicle of claim 29, wherein upon detection of the fault in the first actuation system, the autonomous vehicle switches from the first control lane to the second control lane for the motion planning system to transmit at least one motion plan of the motion plans to the second actuation system (Hauler ¶0017-0019).
Regarding claim 31, Hauler in view of Phillips teaches a system comprising:
a first actuation system [Hauler 9, 10, 11] and a second actuation system [Hauler 14, 15, 16], wherein the first actuation system comprises a first braking system [Hauler 10] and a first steering system [Hauler 11], and wherein the second actuation system comprises a second braking system [Hauler 15] and a second steering system [Hauler 16] (Hauler Figure 2; ¶0018);
a motion planning system [Hauler 8, 13] configured to generate motion plans for an autonomous vehicle and transmit the motion plans to a control system configured to control the autonomous vehicle via at least one of the first actuation system or the second actuation system (Hauler ¶0018-0019), wherein the motion plans are generated by the motion planning system based at least in part on data indicative of a predicted motion of one or more objects within a surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle (Phillips Col. 13, lines 36-55); and
a fault detection system [Hauler 17, 18] configured to (1) detect faults in the first actuation system and the second actuation system and (2) upon detection of a fault in the first actuation system, instruct the control system to control the autonomous vehicle via the second actuation system (Hauler ¶0017-0019), as previously modified, and with the same motivation as applied in regard to claim(s) 21, above.
Regarding claim 32, Hauler in view of Phillips teaches the system of claim 31, wherein the second actuation system is configured to control a motion of the autonomous vehicle [Hauler 3] in accordance with at least one motion plan of the motion plans (Hauler ¶0018-0019).
Regarding claim 33, Hauler in view of Phillips teaches the system of claim 31, wherein the control system is further configured to: upon the detection of a fault in the second actuation system, control the autonomous vehicle via the first actuation system (Hauler ¶0017-0019).
Regarding claim 34, Hauler in view of Phillips teaches the system of claim 31, wherein the first actuation system is configured to control a motion of the autonomous vehicle in accordance with at least one motion plan of the motion plans (Hauler ¶0018-0019).
Regarding claim 35, Hauler in view of Phillips teaches the system of claim 31, wherein the fault comprises at least one of: (1) a fault associated with a steering system of the autonomous vehicle, or (ii) a fault associated with a braking system of the autonomous vehicle (Hauler ¶0017-0019).
Regarding claim 38, Hauler in view of Phillips teaches the system of claim 31, wherein at least one motion plan of the motion plans indicates the autonomous vehicle is to stop (Hauler ¶0017, ¶0019).
Regarding claim 39, Hauler in view of Phillips teaches the system of claim 31, wherein the autonomous vehicle is an autonomous truck [Hauler 3]. Examiner notes Hauler’s description is not limited to any type of autonomous vehicle, and is therefore understood to be applicable to any type of autonomous vehicle, including trucks.
Regarding claim 40, Hauler in view of Phillips teaches a computing system comprising:
one or more processors (Hauler ¶0014); and
one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors (Hauler ¶0014) to:
generate motion plans for an autonomous vehicle [Hauler 3] and transmit the motion plans to a control system configured to control the autonomous vehicle via at least one of a first actuation system [Hauler 9, 10, 11] or a second actuation system [Hauler 14, 15, 16] (Hauler Figure 2; ¶0018), wherein the motion plans are generated by the motion planning system based at least in part on data indicative of a predicted motion of one or more objects within a surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle (Phillips Col. 13, lines 36-55)
wherein the first actuation system comprises a first braking system [Hauler 10] and a first steering system [Hauler 11], wherein the second actuation system comprises a second braking system [Hauler 15] and a second steering system [Hauler 16],
detect faults in the first actuation system and the second actuation system (Hauler ¶0017-0019), and
upon detection of a fault in the first actuation system, transmit at least one motion plan, of the motion plans, to the control system to control the autonomous vehicle via the second actuation system (Hauler ¶0017-0019), as previously modified, and with the same motivation as applied in regard to claim(s) 21, above.
Regarding claim 41, Hauler in view of Phillips teaches the computing system of claim 40, wherein the one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable media further store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to:
upon detection of a fault in the second actuation system, transmit at least one motion plan, of the motion plans, to the control system to control the autonomous vehicle via the first actuation system (Hauler ¶0017-0019).
Claim(s) 26-27 and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauler in view of Phillips as applied to claims 21 and 30 above, and further in view of Gordon et al. (US Patent No. 9,566,986).
Regarding claim 26, Hauler in view of Phillips teaches the autonomous vehicle of claim 21 (Hauler Figure 2; ¶0017-0019; Phillips Col. 13, lines 36-55), but appears to be silent on the autonomous vehicle further wherein the fault detection system is configured to determine, for each respective fault, a value indicative of a level of criticality of the respective fault.
Gordon, however, teaches a computer-implemented method, system, and/or computer program product controls a driving mode of a self-driving vehicle (SDV). Sensor readings describe a current operational anomaly of an SDV that is traveling on a roadway. One or more processors compare a control processor competence level of the on-board SDV control processor that autonomously controls the SDV to a human driver competence level of a human driver in controlling the SDV while the SDV experiences the current operational anomaly. One or more processors then selectively assign control of the SDV to the on-board SDV control processor or to the human driver while the SDV experiences the current operational anomaly based on which of the control processor competence level and the human driver competence level is relatively higher to the other (Gordon Abstract). Gordon further teaches the use of a threshold for seriousness of a vehicle fault that would require switching from autonomous operation to manual operation (Gordon Col. 7, line 50 - Col. 8, line 3), and further that the autonomous vehicle may alter its route based on the severity of the fault, including pulling over and stopping immediately (Gordon Col. 8, lines 14-19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Hauler in view of Phillips in view of Gordon. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Hauler in view of Phillips, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include wherein the fault detection system is configured to determine, for each respective fault, a value indicative of a level of criticality of the respective fault, as doing so was a known way of ascertaining fault severity for informing future remedial safety actions, as recognized by Gordon (Gordon Col. 7, line 50 - Col. 8, line 3; Col. 8, lines 14-19).
Regarding claim 27, Hauler in view of Phillips in view of Gordon teaches the autonomous vehicle of claim 26, wherein the fault detection system is configured to instruct the control system to control the autonomous vehicle via the second actuation system based on the value associated with the fault being above a threshold.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Hauler in view of Phillips in view of Gordon. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Hauler in view of Phillips in view of Gordon, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include wherein the fault detection system is configured to instruct the control system to control the autonomous vehicle via the second actuation system based on the value associated with the fault being above a threshold, as doing so represents an obvious combination of Hauler’s failsafe redundant control path used during vehicle faults, with Gordon’s fault criticality threshold for informing remedial safety actions.
Regarding claim 36, Hauler in view of Phillips in view of Gordon teaches the system of claim 30 (Hauler Figure 2; ¶0017-0019; Phillips Col. 13, lines 36-55), wherein the fault detection system is further configured to determine, for each respective fault, a value indicative of a level of criticality of the respective fault (Gordon Col. 7, line 50 - Col. 8, line 3; Col. 8, lines 14-19), as previously modified, and with the same motivation as applied in regard to claim(s) 26, above.
Regarding claim 37, Hauler in view of Phillips in view of Gordon teaches the system of claim 36, wherein the fault detection system is further configured to instruct the control system to control the autonomous vehicle via the second actuation system based on the value associated with the fault being above a threshold (Gordon Col. 7, line 50 - Col. 8, line 3; Col. 8, lines 14-19), as previously modified, and with the same motivation as applied in regard to claim(s) 27, above.
Response to Arguments
Arguments made with respect to claim(s) 21, 31, and 40 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as applied in the current rejection, and/or do not apply to each of the references relied upon. Furthermore, any modification of a reference’s application or introduction of additional references was necessitated by Applicant’s instant amendments.
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 MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664