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 .
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.
Claim Status
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on 9/24/2024 and 3/10/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 4, “an operational plan” should be “an operation plan” to be consistent with the remainder of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Number 11,673,564. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Comparing claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Number 11,673,564 to claims 1-12 of the instant application:
“An autonomous fallback method for a vehicle, comprising:” of U.S. Patent Number 11,673,564 is equivalent to “A system comprising: a vehicle; an autonomous computing system configured to determine an operational plan and a set of fallback plans, wherein the vehicle is controlled according to the operation plan during a nominal operational mode” of the instant application;
“wherein the embedded controller is within a low-level safety platform which is communicatively connected to the autonomous computing system and a vehicle communication network” of U.S. Patent Number 11,673,564 is equivalent to “a lower-level control system configured to:” of the instant application; and
“determining satisfaction of a trigger condition and, in response, autonomously controlling the vehicle based on the fallback plan with the embedded controller” of U.S. Patent Number 11,673,564 is equivalent to “determine satisfaction of a trigger condition; and automatically transition to controlling the vehicle according to the set of fallback plans when the trigger condition is satisfied” of the instant application.
Comparing claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Number 11,673,564 to claims 13-20 of the instant application:
“An autonomous fallback method for a vehicle, comprising:” of U.S. Patent Number 11,673,564 is equivalent to “An autonomous vehicle control system comprising: a computing module configured to determine an operation plan and a set of fallback plans” of the instant application;
“wherein the embedded controller is within a low-level safety platform which is communicatively connected to the autonomous computing system and a vehicle communication network” of U.S. Patent Number 11,673,564 is equivalent to “a lower-level control system comprising: a memory configured to store the operation plan and the set of fallback plans received from the computing module” of the instant application; and
“determining satisfaction of a trigger condition and, in response, autonomously controlling the vehicle based on the fallback plan with the embedded controller” of U.S. Patent Number 11,673,564 is equivalent to “a control unit configured to automatically transition from controlling a vehicle according to the operation plan to controlling the vehicle according to the set of fallback plans when a trigger condition is satisfied” of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-11, 13-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eade et al. (U.S. Patent Number 10,747,223, hereinafter Eade).
Regarding claim 1, Eade discloses:
a vehicle (col. 12, lines 50-65);
an autonomous computing system configured to determine an operational plan and a set of fallback plans, wherein the vehicle is controlled according to the operation plan during a nominal operational mode (col. 12, line 50 - col. 13, line 52; and FIG. 2, Navigation/Guidance subsystem-156, Calculate primary and controlled stop trajectories-202, Control vehicle to implement primary trajectory-204, and Forward controlled stop trajectory to secondary vehicle control system-206);
a lower-level control system configured to: (col. 13, line 53 - col. 14, line 7; FIG. 2, Monitor subsystem-182, Wait for controlled stop trajectory message from primary vehicle control system-208, Message received before timeout? - 210, Trajectory message indicates adverse event? - 212, and Store controlled stop trajectory-214);
determine satisfaction of a trigger condition (col. 13, line 63 - col. 14, line 13); and
automatically transition to controlling the vehicle according to the set of fallback plans when the trigger condition is satisfied (col. 14, lines 8-41; and FIG. 2, Controlled stop subsystem-186, Generate controlled stop alert-216, Retrieve stored controlled stop trajectory-218, and Control vehicle to implement controlled stop trajectory using stored velocities-220).
Regarding claim 2, Eade further discloses:
wherein the lower-level control system comprises an embedded controller (col. 7, lines 54-63); and
wherein the autonomous computing system comprises a general purpose computing system separate from the embedded controller (col. 6, lines 62-67).
Regarding claim 4, Eade further discloses:
wherein the lower-level control system is further configured to: (col. 13, line 53 - col. 14, line 7);
receive the operation plan and set of fallback plans from the autonomous computing system (col. 12, line 50 - col. 13, line 52); and
control the vehicle according to the operation plan in the nominal operational mode (col. 14, lines 48-55).
Regarding claim 5, Eade further discloses:
wherein each fallback plan of the set of fallback plans comprises a trajectory that deviates from a trajectory of the operation plan (col. 14, line 42 - col. 15, line 3; and FIG. 3, autonomous vehicle-100, highway-242, shoulders-246,248, primary trajectory-254, and controlled stop trajectory-256).
Regarding claim 9, Eade further discloses:
wherein the lower-level control system is further configured to: receive sensor data sampled by the vehicle (col. 7, line 64 - col. 8, line 7; and FIG. 1, Secondary vehicle control system-160, Secondary sensors-170, Wheel encoders-172, IMU-174, and Optical array-176); and
validate a selected fallback plan from the set of fallback plans based on the sensor data (col. 14, lines 20-32; and FIG. 2, Velocity calculation subsystem-184, Collect secondary sensor data-222, and Calculate and store velocities-224).
Regarding claim 10, Eade further discloses:
wherein the lower-level control system validates the selected fallback plan based on the sensor data while executing the selected fallback plan (col. 14, lines 20-32).
Regarding claim 11, Eade further discloses:
wherein the sensor data used to validate the selected fallback plan (col. 14, lines 20-32); and
comprises a subset of a set of sensor data used to determine the operation plan and the set of fallback plans (col. 7, line 1 - col. 8, line 7; col. 11, line 65 - col. 12, line 31; and FIG. 1, Primary vehicle control system-120, Primary sensors-130, GPS-132, RADAR-134, LIDAR-136, Camera-138, IMU-140, Secondary vehicle control system-160, Secondary sensors-170, Wheel encoders-172, IMU-174, and Optical array-176).
Regarding claim 13, Eade further discloses:
a computing module configured to determine an operation plan and a set of fallback plans (col. 12, line 50 - col. 13, line 52; and FIG. 2, Navigation/Guidance subsystem-156, Calculate primary and controlled stop trajectories-202, Control vehicle to implement primary trajectory-204, and Forward controlled stop trajectory to secondary vehicle control system-206);
a lower-level control system comprising: (col. 13, line 53 - col. 14, line 7; FIG. 2, Monitor subsystem-182, Wait for controlled stop trajectory message from primary vehicle control system-208, Message received before timeout? - 210, Trajectory message indicates adverse event? - 212, and Store controlled stop trajectory-214);
a memory configured to store the operation plan and the set of fallback plans received from the computing module (col. 7, lines 54-63; and FIG. 1, Secondary vehicle control system-160, Processor-162, Memory-164, and Instructions-166);
a control unit configured to automatically transition from controlling a vehicle according to the operation plan to controlling the vehicle according to the set of fallback plans (col. 14, lines 8-41; and FIG. 2, Controlled stop subsystem-186, Generate controlled stop alert-216, Retrieve stored controlled stop trajectory-218, and Control vehicle to implement controlled stop trajectory using stored velocities-220); and
when a trigger condition is satisfied (col. 13, line 63 - col. 14, line 13).
Regarding claim 14, Eade further discloses:
wherein the lower-level control system consists of less processing capacity than the computing module (col. 11, lines 40-52).
Regarding claim 17, Eade further discloses:
wherein the trigger condition comprises an error in a command generated by the computing module (col. 13, line 53 - col. 14, line 13).
Regarding claim 18, Eade further discloses:
wherein the computing module determines the operation plan and the set of fallback plans (col. 12, line 50 - col. 13, line 52);
based on an environmental dataset sampled by the vehicle (col. 7, line 1 - col. 8, line 7; col. 11, line 65 - col. 12, line 31; and FIG. 1, Primary vehicle control system-120, Primary sensors-130, GPS-132, RADAR-134, LIDAR-136, Camera-138, IMU-140, Secondary vehicle control system-160, Secondary sensors-170, Wheel encoders-172, IMU-174, and Optical array-176); and
wherein the control unit controls the vehicle based on a strict subset of the environmental dataset (col. 14, lines 8-41; and FIG. 2, Velocity calculation subsystem-184, Controlled stop subsystem-186, Generate controlled stop alert-216, Retrieve stored controlled stop trajectory-218, Control vehicle to implement controlled stop trajectory using stored velocities-220, Collect secondary sensor data-222, and Calculate and store velocities-224).
Regarding claim 19, Eade further discloses:
wherein the control unit validates at least one fallback plan based on the strict subset of the environmental dataset (col. 14, lines 8-41).
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.
Claims 3, 7-8, 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eade, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US-2022/0185298-A1, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 3, Eade does not disclose a drive-by-wire system. However, Chen discloses automated vehicle safety response methods, including the following features:
wherein the lower-level control system is arranged between the autonomous computing system and a drive-by-wire control system of the vehicle (paragraphs [0058] and [0082-0083]; and FIG. 3A, Autonomous vehicle main computing platform-302, Minimal Risk Condition Control (MRCC) system-304, Drive-by-Wire (DBW) system-306, Autonomous vehicle computing platform failure detection engine-308, Vehicle safety response engine-310, and Command relay engine-316); and
wherein the lower-level control system passes through the operation plan to the drive-by-wire control system in the nominal operational mode and transmits at least one of the set of fallback plans instead of the operation plan when the trigger condition is satisfied (paragraphs [0058] and [0082-0083]).
Chen teaches that a Minimal Risk Condition Control (MRCC) system should detect failure of an autonomous vehicle main computing platform; and determine vehicle safety response control commands for a Drive-by-Wire (DBW) system to bring a vehicle to a safe stop (paragraphs [0082-0083]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Drive-by-Wire system of Chen into the control system of Eade. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of efficiently controlling the vehicle. A person of ordinary skill would be familiar with drive-by-wire vehicle control actuators.
Regarding claim 7, Eade does not disclose determining an occupancy classification for each navigational edge. However, Chen further discloses:
determining a set of navigational edges (paragraph [0073]; and FIG. 2C, Roadway-200, Lanes-200A,200B, Vehicle-202, Obstacle-204, Planned trajectory-206, and Actual trajectory-208);
determining an occupancy classification for each navigational edge based on environmental measurements sampled by the vehicle (paragraph [0073]; and FIG. 1C, Auxiliary sensor system-114, and Radar-118); and
determining a fallback plan for each navigational edge that is classified with an unoccupied classification (paragraphs [0082-0083]).
Chen teaches that a Minimal Risk Condition Control (MRCC) system should modify vehicle safety response control commands to stop the vehicle before encountering an obstacle or to follow a modified trajectory that avoids the obstacle (paragraph [0073]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the trajectory which avoids an obstacle of Chen into the control system of Eade. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing a collision with an obstacle. A person of ordinary skill would be aware of the need to avoid a collision with obstacles when moving a vehicle to the shoulder of a highway.
Regarding claim 8, Eade further discloses:
wherein the set of navigational edges are predetermined based on a route map (col. 8, lines 47-54).
Regarding claim 12, Eade does not disclose executing a full stop in response to identification of a future collision between an object and a vehicle along a selected fallback plan. However, Chen further discloses:
wherein the lower-level control system is further configured to, while controlling the vehicle according to the set of fallback plans: identify a future collision between an object and the vehicle along a selected fallback plan from the set of fallback plans (paragraph [0073]; and FIG. 2C, Roadway-200, Lanes-200A,200B, Vehicle-202, Obstacle-204, Planned trajectory-206, and Actual trajectory-208); and
execute a full stop in response to identification of the future collision (paragraph [0073]).
Chen teaches that a Minimal Risk Condition Control (MRCC) system should modify vehicle safety response control commands to stop the vehicle before encountering an obstacle or to follow a modified trajectory that avoids the obstacle (paragraph [0073]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the trajectory which avoids an obstacle of Chen into the control system of Eade. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing a collision with an obstacle. A person of ordinary skill would be aware of the need to avoid a collision with obstacles when moving a vehicle to the shoulder of a highway.
Regarding claim 15, Eade does not disclose determining an occupancy classification for each navigational edge. However, Chen further discloses:
determining a set of a navigational edges (paragraph [0073]; and FIG. 2C, Roadway-200, Lanes-200A,200B, Vehicle-202, Obstacle-204, Planned trajectory-206, and Actual trajectory-208);
predicting an occupancy for each navigational edge (paragraph [0073]; and FIG. 1C, Auxiliary sensor system-114, and Radar-118); and
determining a fallback plan for each unoccupied navigational edge (paragraphs [0082-0083]).
Chen teaches that a Minimal Risk Condition Control (MRCC) system should modify vehicle safety response control commands to stop the vehicle before encountering an obstacle or to follow a modified trajectory that avoids the obstacle (paragraph [0073]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the trajectory which avoids an obstacle of Chen into the control system of Eade. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing a collision with an obstacle. A person of ordinary skill would be aware of the need to avoid a collision with obstacles when moving a vehicle to the shoulder of a highway.
Regarding claim 16, Eade does not disclose executing a full stop in response to identification of a future collision between an object and a vehicle along a selected fallback plan. However, Chen further discloses:
wherein the control unit is further configured to execute a full stop when an obstacle is detected along a trajectory for the at least one fallback plan when controlling the vehicle according to the at least one fallback plan (paragraph [0073]; and FIG. 2C, Roadway-200, Lanes-200A,200B, Vehicle-202, Obstacle-204, Planned trajectory-206, and Actual trajectory-208).
Chen teaches that a Minimal Risk Condition Control (MRCC) system should modify vehicle safety response control commands to stop the vehicle before encountering an obstacle or to follow a modified trajectory that avoids the obstacle (paragraph [0073]). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the trajectory which avoids an obstacle of Chen into the control system of Eade. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing a collision with an obstacle. A person of ordinary skill would be aware of the need to avoid a collision with obstacles when moving a vehicle to the shoulder of a highway.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Herbach et al. (US-2021/0043089-A1) discloses a system providing fallback requests for autonomous vehicles. Each trigger is a set of conditions that, when satisfied, indicate when a vehicle requires attention for proper operation. Processors are configured to send instructions to self-driving systems to execute a primary task and receive status updates from the self-driving systems. The processors are configured to determine that a set of conditions of a trigger is satisfied based on the status updates and send further instructions based on an associated fallback task to the self-driving systems (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA L WEBER whose telephone number is (303)297-4249. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 MTN.
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 Almatrahi can be reached at 3134464821. 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.
TAMARA L. WEBER
Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/TAMARA L WEBER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667