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 .
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Status of the Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment of 23 January. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Federal Republic of Germany on08/16/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE102023121946.4 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment and/or Argument
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Objections of Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11-12, and 14-20 as set forth in the office action 23 October 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Objections of Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11-12, and 14-20 as set forth in the office action 23 October 2025 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the Double patenting of Claims 2, 4, 8-9, 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Since Applicant has not argued the rejection and/or amended the claims, the rejection is repeated herein. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) ("The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action.")
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the office action 23 October 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the office action 23 October 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejections of Claims 1, 9 and 16’s reasons 1 & 6 and Claims 2-4, 8, 10-12 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as set forth in the office action 23 October 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Rejections of Claims 1, 9 and 16’s reasons 1 & 6 and Claims 2-4, 8, 10-12 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as set forth in the office action 23 October 2025 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections of Claims 7 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Since Applicant has not argued the rejection and/or amended the claims, the rejection is repeated herein. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) ("The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action.")
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejections of Claims 1, 9, 16’s reasons 2-5 & 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as set forth in the office action 23 October 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues (Pages 7-10 of Applicant’s Remarks dated 01/23/2026).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
518
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
271
859
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Examiner’s Response:
The examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
Regarding Reason 2: Typical AV planning uses environmental and vehicle state data but Applicant’s specification fails to provide how the family/plurality of evasive trajectories are generated and under what criteria? Simply stating that sensor data are fed into a behavior planning module is a high level description that merely described a desired results which continues to lack disclosure on how the trajectory is calculated, sampled or evaluated without explanation of numbers of constraints and sampling method.
Regarding Reason 3: Applicant argues that risk is well understood to include physical injury, property damage, etc.. Written description requires that the specification itself demonstrates possession of the claimed invention, NOT that a POSTIA could supply missing details/information not disclosed in the specification. The specification must show how risk factors are relevant to this invention, specifically what particular risk or risks are considered and means in this particular invention. The specification does not describe how the system identifies, quantifies or prioritizes those risks. Simply stating the vehicle minimize certain risk does not describe how the choices between trajectories is made, what weights are applied or which subset of risks is considered in a given decision.
Regarding Reason 4: Applicant argues that risk is assigned a number based on factors but the specification does not disclose any risk metrics, scoring models, how sensor data feeds into that scoring, how these numbers are calculated using, e.g., probabilities, cost functions, etc.; the term “risk is assigned a number” is unspecified algorithmic content. The specification provides no disclosure of any actual scoring algorithm, probabilistic model or quantitative evaluation metrics. There is no teaching on how risk numbers are calculated, combined or used to select a trajectory.
Regarding Reason 5: Applicant argues that risk is applied to parties involved. This is a conceptual articulation of what risks applies to but the specification never specifically states risks applies to the host vehicle, pedestrian, other vehicles, etc., specifically, no disclosure in the specification shows which entity’s risk is considered in the trajectory selection. For example, does the risk for a pedestrian affect the same scoring as risk to the host vehicle? and how is it computed. The specification does not disclose which entities’ risk is evaluated or how that evaluation impacts trajectory selection.
Regarding Reason 7: The specification does not disclose interruption conditions and what happens afterward. The specification does not disclose how the vehicle measures speed, applies thresholds or tolerances or determine the conditions for starting, continuing or stopping evasive movement. Applicant’s response of AV can continue along the previously prepared path or create a new path creates logical inconsistency because (a) both previously prepared path and new path are still evasive trajectories designed to avoid the collision cause. If the vehicle continues along the prepared path, it is still executing evasive movement not interrupting it, and if the vehicle creates a new path that avoids the collision, cause, it is still executing evasive movement NOT ceasing it. Therefore, from the examiner’s perspective, the vehicle is NEVER truly interrupting the evasive movement. Interrupting implies a clear cessation or transition of the evasive action, not simply continuing in the same evasive path or performing another evasive action. Stopping the vehicle is ending motion of vehicle not interrupting evasive movement; continuing the original path or replanning a new path (as argued by the Applicant) would constitute ongoing evasive movement especially if the trajectory was designed to avoid the obstacle. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is NOT persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claims 17, 18 and 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claims 9 and 16), Applicant has apparently not described, in the specification, in sufficient details, by what algorithm(s) or by what steps/procedure, particularly the recited limitation “…the evasive trajectory with the lowest risk is selected from a plurality of evasive trajectories…the evasive movement of the vehicle is interrupted”. The specification merely restates the claim language without providing sufficient details or working examples, the specification (published specification) states:
[0043]”…if an impending collision is detected, an evasive strategy can be calculated. A family of possible evasive trajectories can be generated in the trajectory generator 13, wherein the evasive trajectory with the lowest risk is selected by the situation analysis and planning module 12 and executed by the actuators 14 …”
[0048] FIG. 9 is a schematic view of the scenario in which the potential collision cause 20 has moved further towards the vehicle 1 . The vehicle 1 executes an evasive maneuver on the evasive trajectory T 1 with the lowest risk and drives backwards away from the potential collision cause 20 . Continuous recalculation and adaptation can take place. As soon as the speed of the potential collision cause 20 has fallen to zero, the evasive maneuver of vehicle 1 is interrupted.
The claim limitation recites complex and safety critical functions related to real time autonomous vehicle navigation and/or control with decision making for collision avoidance trajectory generation to subsequently trajectory selection based on a risk metrics. However, the specification fails to provide working algorithm(s), examples, models, simulation or any design parameters that support the full scope of the claimed limitation “…the evasive trajectory with the lowest risk is selected from a plurality of evasive trajectories…” for at least the following reasons: (i) how any or all “plurality of evasive trajectories” is/are generated and by what algorithm(s) or criteria; (ii) does not define what type(s) of risk is/are relevant (e.g., physical injury, property damage, legal liability, passenger discomfort, or something else); (iii) does not specify or define how any or all risks is measured or quantified and with what algorithm(s) (e.g., probabilistic, scoring models, sensor data fusion, or something else), (iv) does not state what or who the risk applies to (e.g., risk to host vehicle, obstacle, passenger, other vehicles, or something else); (v) under what conditions evasive movement is interrupted (e.g., how does the system detects the speed of the potential collision cause and under what threshold/tolerance or any decision criteria used to determine that the speed has fallen to about zero) and in particular how such evasive movement is interrupted (e.g., does the host/ego vehicle stop? Resuming on original trajectory, transitioning to another state, or something else). See the 2019 35 U.S.C. 112 Compliance Federal Register Notice (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday, January 7, 2019, pages 57 to 63). See also http://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/exTrain/documents/2019-112-guidance-initiative.pptx . Quoting the FR Notice at pages 61 and 62, "The Federal Circuit emphasized that ‘‘[t]he written description requirement is not met if the specification merely describes a ‘desired result.’ ’’ Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682 (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349). . . . When examining computer-implemented, software-related claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm(s) that achieve the claimed function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as 'a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.' Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may 'express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.' Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340 (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could theoretically write a program to achieve the claimed function, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of it. See, e.g., Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682–83. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm(s) in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention that achieves the claimed result, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made. See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I." Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 7 (similarly claim 20), Applicant has apparently not described, in the specification, in sufficient details, particularly the recited limitation “wherein the autonomous vehicle is positioned to intercept the potential collision cause by driving the vehicle with a protective device extended initially in the direction of the potential collision cause, continuing to drive at a same speed and direction as the potential collision cause when the protective device comes into contact with the potential collision cause and then braking itself and the potential collision cause to a standstill”. The specification merely repeats the claim languages but does not describe the system performing an intentional interception maneuver nor does it disclose the necessary system or control logic for matching speed and direction to manage safe contact with the collision cause and executing a braking sequence that simultaneously controls both the host/ego vehicle and the potential collision cause to a standstill. Further, the claim recites intercepting a potential collision cause that implies an intentional contact but the specification does not disclose (i) a scenario where evasive trajectory is impossible, (ii) describe interception as a default or backup strategy, and (iii)providing a behavior planning rationale for intentional contact over collision avoidance; and without describing a justify condition (that is, no safe alternative route exists), the behavior claimed appears unjustified. Lastly, intercepting and braking both vehicles would require object detection and classification, precise motion matching (in speed and direction) and real time control of contact and braking but the specification does not describe how this is achieved (and why? In the case that there are other escape paths), when this intercepting behavior is activated or not, and what’s purpose (or justification) of such interception and what physical characteristics/property the protective devices must have and defined particularly how. See the 2019 35 U.S.C. 112 Compliance Federal Register Notice (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday, January 7, 2019, pages 57 to 63). See also http://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/exTrain/documents/2019-112-guidance-initiative.pptx . Quoting the FR Notice at pages 61 and 62, "The Federal Circuit emphasized that ‘‘[t]he written description requirement is not met if the specification merely describes a ‘desired result.’ ’’ Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682 (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349). . . . When examining computer-implemented, software-related claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm(s) that achieve the claimed function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as 'a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.' Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may 'express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.' Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340 (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could theoretically write a program to achieve the claimed function, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of it. See, e.g., Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682–83. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm(s) in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention that achieves the claimed result, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made. See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I." Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant has not demonstrated to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The dependent claims that dependent upon independent claims are also rejected under 112 first paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll (US 2022/0111866 A1) in view of Kakeshita et al. (US 2022/0234653 A1 hereinafter Kakeshita).
Regarding claim 1, Carroll teaches A method for operating an autonomous vehicle with a sensor system and a computing unit connected thereof (see at least Abstract Fig. 2) , the method comprising:
detecting with the sensor system an environment of the autonomous vehicle and potential collision cause, (see at least Fig. 2-6 [0046-0136]: the safety control module considers or monitors data from various sources (e.g. various sensors) in determining a safety plan for a particular set of circumstances associated with an imminent or unavoidable collision events. Various sensor information and surrounding data is continuously being reviewed by the AV control subsystem. The safety control module operates to continuously determine possible safety travel paths otherwise avoiding obstructions.)
detecting an impending collision of the potential collision cause, (see at least Fig. 2-6 [0046-0136]: Various sensor information and surrounding data is continuously being reviewed by the control sub-system 52 ( FIG. 2). As reflected by dashed arrows 64 , the safety control module 54 ( FIG. 2) optionally operates to continuously determine possible safety travel paths otherwise avoiding the obstructions 62 . This normal mode of operation continues at point in time B. At point in time C, an imminent or unavoidable collision event of the AV 30 with an object 66 (e.g., a vehicle determined to be entering onto the road 60 ; an obstacle/body accidently left on the road 60 ; etc.) is determined or estimated as being highly likely. The determination or estimation of an unavoidable collision event can be made by the logic/programming associated with the safety control module 54 ( FIG. 2) and/or by logic/programming conventionally provided with some AVs. Regardless, upon determining that an unavoidable collision with the object 66 will occur, the safety control module 54 determines a safety or safest path (e.g., designated by dashed line 68 in FIG. 3) for the body 42 that avoids, to the extent possible, any road-side obstructions 62 and the object 66 , and then operates the release sub-system 50 (FIG. 2) to release the body 42 from the platform 40 at a point in time D that is determined to “send” the body 42 along the safety path 68.) and
preparing an evasive strategy including an evasive trajectory in which the evasive trajectory with the lowest risk is selected from a plurality of evasive trajectories and is carried out by the autonomous vehicle, (see at least Fig. 2-6 [0046-0136]: Various sensor information and surrounding data is continuously being reviewed by the control sub-system 52 ( FIG. 2). As reflected by dashed arrows 64 , the safety control module 54 ( FIG. 2) optionally operates to continuously determine possible safety travel paths otherwise avoiding the obstructions 62 . This normal mode of operation continues at point in time B. At point in time C, an imminent or unavoidable collision event of the AV 30 with an object 66 (e.g., a vehicle determined to be entering onto the road 60 ; an obstacle/body accidently left on the road 60 ; etc.) is determined or estimated as being highly likely. The determination or estimation of an unavoidable collision event can be made by the logic/programming associated with the safety control module 54 ( FIG. 2) and/or by logic/programming conventionally provided with some AVs. Regardless, upon determining that an unavoidable collision with the object 66 will occur, the safety control module 54 determines a safety or safest path (e.g., designated by dashed line 68 in FIG. 3) for the body 42 that avoids, to the extent possible, any road-side obstructions 62 and the object 66 , and then operates the release sub-system 50 (FIG. 2) to release the body 42 from the platform 40 at a point in time D that is determined to “send” the body 42 along the safety path 68. The safety path analysis can continuously determine a selected safest option or options in preparation for a possible imminent or unavoidable collision event so this time is nested. With these optional embodiments, a more effective reaction time can be provided before an actual unavoidable collision event occurs. )
It may be alleged that wherein once the speed of the potential collision cause has fallen below a predetermined threshold, the evasive movement of the autonomous vehicle is interrupted.
Kakeshita is directed is directed to collision avoidance with an object, Kakeshita teaches wherein once the speed of the potential collision cause has fallen below a predetermined threshold, the evasive movement of the autonomous vehicle is interrupted. (see at least Fig. 3A-7 [0066-0118]: After the vehicle collision avoidance assist apparatus starts executing the avoiding steering process, the vehicle collision avoidance assist apparatus stops executing the steering avoidance control when the deceleration of the target moving object (obstacle vehicle) becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined deceleration (i.e. speed of the obstacle falls below a predetermined threshold).)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Carroll’s autonomous vehicle’s safety system and method for avoiding collision consequences to incorporate the technique of stopping execution of a collision avoidance steering control on a collision avoidance trajectory when obstacle’s deceleration becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold as taught by Kakeshita with reasonable expectation of success to provide a vehicle collision avoidance assist apparatus which can prevent collision of the own vehicle with the moving object when the moving object is decelerated while the vehicle collision avoidance assist apparatus executes the steering avoidance control and doing so would prevent the host vehicle from colliding with the moving object even when the moving object is decelerated. (Takeshita [0003-0006]).
Regarding claim 3 ( similarly claim 11), the combination of Carroll in view of Kakeshita teaches The method according to claim 1,
Carroll further teaches wherein upon detection of the impending collision, further protective measures are initiated and configured to reduce aspects the collision, the further protective measures comprising extending an extendable protective device, triggering an external airbag, and combination thereof. (see at least Fig. 2-6 [0046-0136]: One or more features can be provided with the body to effectuate increased drag upon release of the body from the platform. Alternatively or in addition, a mechanical feature typical to a brush, rake, pin, racing car air brake, drag car parachute, chute or flap, etc., can be carried by or provided with the body and caused to deploy thereby spreading out the inertia over time to ease the impact upon passengers after or during the body being fully or partially released. Airbags are optionally included on the inside of the body, the outside of the body, or both.)
Regarding claim 4 (similarly claim 9), the combination of Carroll in view of Kakeshita teaches The method according to claim 1,
Carroll further teaches wherein a continuous recalculation and adaptation occurs during the execution of the evasive trajectory. (see at least Fig. 2-6 [0046-0136]: The algorithms operated by the safety control modules can generate one or more outputs. For example, available escape path options can be an algorithm output, with these options being based upon determined “openings” or “voids” in the physical surrounding environment that are otherwise available for the separated body to exit or travel at various velocity and translation vectors. The algorithms can continuously determine or predict the safest escape path from the available options, for example based on an assessment of predicted impact and/or estimated likelihood of passenger injury.)
Regarding claim 7 (similarly claim 15), the combination of Carroll in view of Kakeshita teaches The method according to claim 1 (similarly claim 9),
Carroll further teaches wherein the autonomous vehicle is positioned to intercept the potential collision cause b driving the autonomous vehicle with a protective device extended initially in the direction of the potential collision cause, continuing to drive at a same speed and direction as the potential collision cause when the protective device comes into contact with the potential collision cause and then braking itself and the potential collision cause to a standstill. (see at least Fig. 2-6 [0046-0136]: the safety control module 170 is programmed to consider and effect a safety path for the body 142 upon release from the platform 140 based upon expected or determined, naturally-occurring forces acting on the body 142 (e.g., a speed and direction of the AV 130 immediately prior to release of the body 142 from the platform 140 , braking of the platform 140 immediately prior to or at the time of release, anticipated collision forces placed upon the body 142 at the instant of release, etc.). In this regard, the safety control module 170 can consider and effect a change in speed and/or direction of the AV 130 using existing or standard operational controls (e.g., speed, steering, braking, etc.).
Claim(s) 2, 8, 10, 12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll in view of Kakeshita and Anderson et al. (US 8437890 B2 hereinafter Anderson).
Regarding claim 2 (similarly claims 10 and 16), the combination of Carroll in view of Kakeshita teaches The method according to claim 1,
the combination of Carroll in view of Kakeshita does not explicitly teach wherein the potential collision cause is detected by detecting illuminated reversing lights or a switching on of reversing lights or by tracking and detecting an uncontrolled movement.
Anderson is directed to advanced driving assistance system, Anderson teaches wherein the potential collision cause is detected by detecting illuminated reversing lights or a switching on of reversing lights or by tracking and detecting an uncontrolled movement. (see at least Col. 2 Lines 17-35: A basic premise of threat assessment for such assisted and automated systems is generally as follows. First, sensing systems such as radar, LIDAR, cameras, inertial measurement units and GPS localization systems are used to detect, classify, and track the position of objects and the drivable road surface in the host vehicle's vicinity as well as measure vehicle states. Once these potential hazards have been identified, localized and their motion has been estimated, a threat metric is used to quantify the threat they pose to the host vehicle, together with the threat of departing the drivable road surface due to loss of vehicle control. As used herein, threat assessment or threat prediction is used to mean identifying hazards and quantifying threat. Many threat assessment technologies are designed to then trigger and/or implement countermeasures to reduce the threat. These countermeasures can be passive or active. The effectiveness of threat assessment metrics depends on their ability to correctly identify hazards and accurately assess the threat that potential hazards pose to the host vehicle.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Carroll and Kakeshita to incorporate the technique of detecting potential collision threats by tracking and detecting uncontrolled movement of other vehicles as taught by Anderson with reasonable expectation of success to ensure the vehicle can correctly identify hazards and accurately assess the threat that potential hazards post to the host vehicle (Anderson Col. 2 Lines 17-35) in order to determine an appropriate mitigation action and doing so would improve vehicle operation safety.
Regarding claim 8 (similarly claims 17-19), the combination of Carroll in view of Kakeshita and Anderson teaches The method according to claim 2 (similarly claim 16),
Carroll further teaches wherein upon detection of the impending collision, further protective measures are initiated and configured to reduce aspects of the collision, the further protective measures comprising extending an extendable protective device, triggering an external airbag, and combination thereof. (see at least Fig. 2-6 [0046-0136]: One or more features can be provided with the body to effectuate increased drag upon release of the body from the platform. Alternatively or in addition, a mechanical feature typical to a brush, rake, pin, racing car air brake, drag car parachute, chute or flap, etc., can be carried by or provided with the body and caused to deploy thereby spreading out the inertia over time to ease the impact upon passengers after or during the body being fully or partially released. Airbags are optionally included on the inside of the body, the outside of the body, or both.)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Carroll in view of Kakeshita and Anderson teaches The method according to claim 10,
Carroll further teaches wherein upon detection of the impending collision, further protective measures are initiated and configured to reduce aspects of the collision, the further protective measures comprising extending an extendable protective device, triggering an external airbag, and combination thereof. (see at least Fig. 2-6 [0046-0136]: One or more features can be provided with the body to effectuate increased drag upon release of the body from the platform. Alternatively or in addition, a mechanical feature typical to a brush, rake, pin, racing car air brake, drag car parachute, chute or flap, etc., can be carried by or provided with the body and caused to deploy thereby spreading out the inertia over time to ease the impact upon passengers after or during the body being fully or partially released. Airbags are optionally included on the inside of the body, the outside of the body, or both.)
Regarding 20, the combination of Carroll in view of Kakeshita and Anderson teaches The method according to claim 19,
Carroll further teaches wherein the autonomous vehicle is positioned to intercept the potential collision cause by driving the vehicle with a protective device extended initially in the direction of the potential collision cause, continuing to drive at a same speed and direction as the potential collision cause when the protective device comes into contact with the potential collision cause and then braking itself and the potential collision cause to a standstill. (see at least Fig. 2-6 [0046-0136]: the safety control module 170 is programmed to consider and effect a safety path for the body 142 upon release from the platform 140 based upon expected or determined, naturally-occurring forces acting on the body 142 (e.g., a speed and direction of the AV 130 immediately prior to release of the body 142 from the platform 140 , braking of the platform 140 immediately prior to or at the time of release, anticipated collision forces placed upon the body 142 at the instant of release, etc.). In this regard, the safety control module 170 can consider and effect a change in speed and/or direction of the AV 130 using existing or standard operational controls (e.g., speed, steering, braking, etc.).
Claim(s) 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll in view of Kakeshita and Kobilarov (US 11126180 B1).
Regarding claim 5 (similarly claim 13), the combination of Carroll in view of Kakeshita teaches The method according to claim 1 (similarly claim 9),
the combination of Carroll in view of Kakeshita does not explicitly teach wherein an evasive trajectory that runs through a region not visible to the sensor system is assigned a particularly high risk.
Kobilarov is directed to system and method of predicting an occupancy associated with occluded regions, Kobilarov teaches wherein an evasive trajectory that runs through a region not visible to the sensor system is assigned a particularly high risk. (see at least Col. 16 Line 57 – Col. 18 Line 2: The trajectory evaluation component 642 can include functionality to evaluate various trajectories or candidate trajectories to select a trajectory to control the vehicle 602. In some examples, the trajectory evaluation component 642 can include functionality to determine various score(s), cost(s), metric(s), and the like based at least in part on probabilit(ies) associated with one or more occluded regions associated with a trajectory, relative occlusion percentages, and/or relative weighting therebetween. An occluded region can be represented as an obstacle and a trajectory can be evaluated by determining an obstacle cost associated with the obstacle (e.g., with the prediction probabilit(ies) increasing or decreasing a weight or cost associated with the obstacle).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Carroll and Kakeshita to incorporate the technique of assigning a high risk to regions that is not visible to the sensor system as taught by Kobilarov with reasonable expectation of success and doing so would ensure that autonomous vehicle system selecting a path that is safest to ensure roadway safety.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll in view of Kakeshita, Kobilarov and Newman et al. (US 2021/0291823 A1 hereinafter Newman).
Regarding claim 6 (similarly claim 14), the combination of Carroll in view of Kakeshita and Kobilarov teaches The method according to claim 5 (similarly claim 13),
the combination of Carroll in view of Kakeshita and Kobilarov does not explicitly teach wherein if there is no alternative to the evasive trajectory located in the non-visible region, the autonomous vehicle drives back on the evasive trajectory or remains stationary.
Newman is directed to system and method for hazard mitigation, Newman teaches wherein if there is no alternative to the evasive trajectory located in the non-visible region, the autonomous vehicle drives back on the evasive trajectory or remains stationary. (see at least Fig. 2-3 [0155-0165]: The collision mitigation system 308 selects a harm-minimization strategy that prioritizes saving lives over hardware damage. The harm-minimization strategy in this case comprises applying positive accelerations and decelerations to the subject vehicle 302 so as to keep the subject vehicle 302 centered between the other two vehicles as they come together. This strategy also ensures that the velocity of the subject vehicle 302 approaches one-half the velocity of the following vehicle 303 (since the leading vehicle 301 velocity is zero). The three vehicles are seen at time T 1 coming closer together while the subject vehicle 302 , guided by the collision mitigation system 308 , remains centered between the other two vehicles. The harm in this type of collision is minimized for several reasons. By arranging to have a velocity midway between the leading and following vehicles 301 and 303 , the subject vehicle 302 ensures that the peak acceleration experienced by any of the vehicles is minimized. Secondly, the strategy minimizes the amount of kinetic energy liberated in the collision.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Carroll, Kakeshita and Kobilarov to incorporate the technique of implementing a harm-minimization strategy to keep the subject vehicle center to absorb impact from an unavoidable collision target as taught by Newman with reasonable expectation of success to prioritizes saving lives over hardware damage (Newman [0162]).
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 DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667