DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 11/07/2024 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katzourakis et al. U.S. Patent 11,046,330 (hereinafter, Katzourakis), in view of Gordon et al. U.S. Patent 9,566,986 (hereinafter, Gordon).
Regarding Claim 1, Katzourakis describes a method, comprising:
-determining, by a computing system, a fault occurring at a first braking system or a second braking system of a primary braking system of an autonomous vehicle operating in an autonomous mode (determining, via the vehicle controller system, a fault in the primary braking system of a vehicle which may be an autonomous vehicle operating in an autonomous mode, Katzourakis, Col. 4 Lines 34-48, Col. 5 Lines 15-23, and Col. 6 Lines 34-67 and Figures 2-6), the primary braking system controlled by the computing system, and the autonomous vehicle using the first braking system (the primary and secondary braking system controlled via the vehicle system, Katzourakis, Col. 4 Lines 34-48, Col. 5 Lines 15-23, and Col. 6 Lines 34-67 and Figures 2-6);
-switching, by the computing system, from using the first braking system in the autonomous mode if the fault is determined at the first braking system (determine to switch braking systems based on detected fault, Katzourakis, Col. 6 Lines 34-67 and Figures 2-6); …
Katzourakis does not specifically disclose the method to include transmitting, by the computing system and to an alert system of the autonomous vehicle, a request to generate an alert for switching to a manual control mode of the autonomous vehicle based at least in part on determining the fault; and deactivating, by the computing system, the autonomous mode of the autonomous vehicle upon determining that the autonomous vehicle is in the manual control mode.
Gordon discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Gordon describes a vehicle system, wherein the system detects a fault within the vehicle system (Gordon, Col. 8 Lines 4-13). When this occurs, the vehicle is capable of switching from an autonomous operating mode to a manual mode (Gordon, Col. 8 Lines 4-13).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Katzourakis to include transmitting, by the computing system and to an alert system of the autonomous vehicle, a request to generate an alert for switching to a manual control mode of the autonomous vehicle based at least in part on determining the fault; and deactivating, by the computing system, the autonomous mode of the autonomous vehicle upon determining that the autonomous vehicle is in the manual control mode, as disclosed, taught, or suggested by Gordon.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references because having a vehicle system determine a fault and transfer vehicle mode of operation (i.e., autonomous / manual) increases the chances of the vehicle operating safely (Gordon, Col. 6 Lines 50-57).
Regarding Claim 2, Katzourakis, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, wherein the fault is determined to occur at the first braking system, and wherein the fault comprises a lapse in communication with the first braking system (determining, via the vehicle controller system, a fault in the primary braking system of a vehicle, which can be based on communication fault (e.g., watchdog timer), Katzourakis, Col. 4 Lines 34-48, Col. 5 Lines 15-23, and Col. 6 Lines 34-67 and Figures 2-6).
Regarding Claim 3, Katzourakis, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, wherein the fault is determined to occur at the second braking system, and wherein the fault comprises a lapse in communication with the second braking system (determining, via the vehicle controller system, a fault in the secondary braking system of a vehicle, which can be based on communication fault (e.g., watchdog timer), Katzourakis, Col. 4 Lines 34-48, Col. 5 Lines 15-23, and Col. 6 Lines 34-67 and Figures 2-6).
Regarding Claim 4, Katzourakis, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, wherein the fault is a first fault determined to occur at the first braking system (determining, via the vehicle controller system, a fault in the first braking system of a vehicle, Katzourakis, Col. 4 Lines 34-48, Col. 5 Lines 15-23, and Col. 6 Lines 34-67 and Figures 2-6), and wherein the method further comprises: determining a second fault at the second braking system (determining, via the vehicle controller system, a fault in the primary or secondary braking system of a vehicle, Katzourakis, Col. 4 Lines 34-48, Col. 5 Lines 15-23, and Col. 6 Lines 34-67 and Figures 2-6); and determining to switch to using an endurance braking system from using the first braking system based at least in part on determining the first fault and determining the second fault (determine to switch or not switch braking systems based on detected fault (e.g., continue to use the first brake system which as an endurance brake or secondary system within the first system, Katzourakis, Col. 6 Lines 34-67 and Figures 2-6).
Regarding Claim 5, Katzourakis, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, wherein the fault is determined to occur at the second braking system, and wherein the method further comprises determining not to switch from using the first braking system (determine to switch or not switch braking systems based on detected fault, Katzourakis, Col. 6 Lines 34-67 and Figures 2-6).
Regarding Claim 6, Katzourakis, as modified, describes the method of claim 1.
Katzourakis does not specifically disclose the method to include transmitting a takeover request to indicate the manual control mode of the autonomous vehicle.
Gordon discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Gordon describes a vehicle system, wherein the system detects a fault within the vehicle system (Gordon, Col. 8 Lines 4-13). When this occurs, the vehicle is capable of switching from an autonomous operating mode to a manual mode (Gordon, Col. 8 Lines 4-13).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Katzourakis to include transmitting a takeover request to indicate the manual control mode of the autonomous vehicle, as disclosed, taught, or suggested by Gordon.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references because having a vehicle system determine a fault and transfer vehicle mode of operation (i.e., autonomous / manual) increases the chances of the vehicle operating safely (Gordon, Col. 6 Lines 50-57).
Regarding Claim 7, Katzourakis, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, wherein the first braking system is in fluidic communication with a first brake piston and the second braking system is in fluidic communication with a second brake piston, wherein the first braking system is activated via a first actuator, and the second braking system is activated via a second actuator distinct from the first actuator (first braking system in communication with a brake piston and the second braking system in communication with a brake piston, Katzouraksi, Col. 4 Lines 49-65, Col. 5 Lines 15-23, and Col. 6 Lines 34-67 and Figures 2-6).
Regarding Claim 8, Katzourakis, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, wherein the primary braking system is a dual-actuator enabled system configured to be activated via a first actuator or a second actuator (dual actuator system which can be activated via the first or second actuator, Katzouraksi, Col. 4 Lines 49-65, Col. 5 Lines 15-23, and Col. 6 Lines 34-67 and Figures 2-6).
Regarding Claim 9, Katzourakis, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises transmitting a control instruction to a steering system of the autonomous vehicle to perform a minimal risk maneuver for the autonomous vehicle (control instruction to steering system of the autonomous vehicle to perform a maneuver which is not a risk, Katzouraksi, Col. 4 Lines 34-48, and Figures 2-6).
Regarding Claim 10, the applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the examiner in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, the applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the examiner in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12, the applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the examiner in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 13, the applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the examiner in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 14, the applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the examiner in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 15, the applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the examiner in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 16, the applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the examiner in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding Claim 17, the applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the examiner in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding Claim 18, the applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the examiner in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding Claim 19, the applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the examiner in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, the applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the examiner in the rejection of claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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 (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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights