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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/15/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Interview Summary
Examiner conducted a telephonic interview with Applicant’s representative Aaron Cunningham on 1/5/2025. Examiner suggested an Examiner’s Amendment incorporating allowable subject matter from the parent application, and filing a Terminal Disclaimer to place the application in condition for allowance.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12202518B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the entire scope of the reference claims falls within the scope of the examined claims.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12202518B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the entire scope of the reference claims falls within the scope of the examined claims.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12202518B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the entire scope of the reference claims falls within the scope of the examined claims.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12202518B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the entire scope of the reference claims falls within the scope of the examined claims.
The species or sub-genus in U.S. Patent No. 12202518B2 anticipates the claimed genus in the instant application and, therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. (see In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993))
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20190243371A1 ("Nister").
Claim 8:
A system comprising: one or more processors to: determine, based at least on sensor data obtained using a machine, one or more first controls associated with one or more trajectories over a future period of time; determine one or more second controls associated with a safety evaluation;
compare the one or more first controls to the one or more second controls; select, based at least on the comparison, a trajectory of the one or more trajectories; and cause the machine to perform one or more operations based at least on the trajectory. (Nister at least the abstract, [0068-0069], [0192], [0205], [0155-0156], [0055], [0168-0170]: “the control option determined based on the perturbation analysis and/or based on one or more rules for finding acceptable control options 708 that are within a threshold relation (e.g., proximity on the control image 706) to the desired control options, may be to stay straight and slow down (e.g., as represented by the acceptable control option”)
Claim 9:
the determination of the one or more first controls comprises generating a control constraint image associated with the safety evaluation, the control constraint image indicating the one or more second controls; and the one or more first controls are compared to the one or more second controls by, at least, comparing the one or more first controls to the control constraint image. (Nister at least [0168-0170])
Claim 10:
wherein the trajectory of the one or more trajectories is selected, at least, by: determining, based at least on the comparison, that at least a portion of the one or more first controls that are associated with the trajectory correspond to the one or more second controls; and selecting the trajectory based at least on the at least the portion of the one or more first controls corresponding to the one or more second controls. (Nister at least [0169-0170])
Claim 11:
wherein the one or more processors are further to: determine, based at least on the comparison, that a portion of the one or more first controls that are associated with a second trajectory of the one or more trajectories does not correspond to the one or more second controls; and refrain from selecting the second trajectory based at least on the portion of the one or more first controls not corresponding to the one or more second controls. (Nister at least [0165]: “unacceptable controls”)
Claim 12:
wherein the one or more processors are further to: determine one or more second trajectories associated with one or more actors; and determine whether the one or more trajectories intersect with the one or more second trajectories, wherein the trajectory is further selected based at least on whether the one or more trajectories intersect with the one or more second trajectories. (Nister at least FIGs. 5A-5C)
Claim 13:
the comparison of one or more first controls to the one or more second controls is performed using one or more first components associated with a first safety level or less; the determination of whether the one or more trajectories intersect with the one or more second trajectories is performed using one or more second components associated with the first safety level or less; and the selection of the trajectory satisfies a second safety level that is greater than the first safety level. (Nister at least FIGs. 5A-5C, [0285-0290])
Claim 14:
the one or more first controls include at least one of one or more first lateral controls or one or more first longitudinal controls; and the one or more second controls include at least one of one or more second lateral controls or one or more second longitudinal controls. (Nister at least FIG. 7B)
Claim 15:
wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. (Nister at least [0318])
Claim 16:
One or more processors comprising: processing circuitry to: determine, based at least on sensor data obtained using a machine, one or more controls associated with one or more trajectories over a future period of time; determine a control constraint image associated with a safety evaluation; compare the one or more controls to the control constraint image select, based at least on the comparison, a trajectory of the one or more trajectories; and cause the machine to perform one or more operations based at least on the trajectory. (Nister at least FIG. 7B 706, abstract, [0068-0069], [0192], [0205], [0155-0156], [0055])
Claim 17:
determining that at least a portion of the one or more controls that is associated with the trajectory correspond to one or more valid controls from the control constraint image; and selecting the trajectory based at least on the at least the portion of the one or more controls corresponding to the one or more valid controls. (Nister at least [0168-0170])
Claim 18:
determine, based at least on the comparison, that a portion of the one or more controls that are associated with a second trajectory of the one or more trajectories correspond to one or more invalid controls; and refrain from selecting the second trajectory based at least on the portion of the one or more controls corresponding to the one or more invalid controls. (Nister at least [0168-0170])
Claim 19:
determine one or more second trajectories associated with one or more actors; and determine whether the one or more trajectories intersect with the one or more second trajectories, wherein the trajectory is further selected based at least on whether the one or more trajectories intersect with the one or more second trajectories. (Nister at least FIGs. 5A-5C)
Claim 20:
wherein the one or more processors are comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. (Nister at least [0318])
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.
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, 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nister.
As per claim 1, Nister teaches:
A method comprising: determining one or more trajectories that a machine may navigate over a future period of time; evaluating, using one or more first components associated with a first automotive safety integrity level (ASIL) of B or less, a first potential for collision with regard to the one or more trajectories; selecting, based at least on the evaluating using the one or more first components and the one or more second components, a trajectory from the one or more trajectories and causing the machine to perform one or more operations based at least on the trajectory. (Nister at least the abstract: “alternative procedure…second safety procedure…lesser likelihood of incurring a collision”, [0068-0069], [0192], [0205], [0155-0156], [0055], [0224]: “camera(s) may operate at automotive safety integrity level (ASIL) B and/or at another ASIL”, [0233], [0285], [0289-290])
Nister does not explicitly disclose:
evaluating, using one or more second components different from the one or more first components also associated with an ASIL of B or less, a second potential for collision with regard to the one or more trajectories;
selecting, based at least on the evaluating using the one or more first components and the one or more second components, a trajectory from the one or more trajectories such that the selecting satisfies an ASIL greater than B;
However Nister does recommend complying with ISO 26262 (Nister [0255]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that ISO 26262 recommends different hardware for duplicate/redundant processing paths and that the combination of two component determination paths of a lesser ASIL level results in a safety level that is higher than that of the two downstream components, per ISO 26262 requirements.
As per claim 4, Nister teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nister additionally teaches:
the one or more first components include at least one of one or more first processors or one or more first processing pipelines; and the one or more second components include at least one of one or more second processors or one or more second processing pipelines. (Nister at least [0255], [0307])
As per claim 5, Nister teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nister additionally teaches:
wherein the evaluating the first potential for collision with regard to the one or more trajectories comprises: determining, using the one or more first components, one or more second trajectories associated with one or more actors over the future period of time; and determining, using the one or more first components, whether the one or more trajectories intersect with the one or more second trajectories. (Nister at least FIGs. 5A-5C)
As per claim 6, Nister teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nister additionally teaches:
wherein the evaluating the second potential for collision with regard to the one or more trajectories comprises: determining, using the one or more second components, one or more first controls associated with the one or more trajectories; determining, using the one or more second components, one or more second controls associated with one or more safety procedures; and determining, using the one or more second components, whether the one or more first controls are similar to the one or more second controls. (Nister at least [0168-0170]: “acceptable control options 708 may be control options that have an equal or lesser safety potential as the safety procedure control options 712. For example, the vehicle 102 may implement the safety procedure control options 712 and/or may implement control options (e.g., the acceptable control options 708) that have an equal or lesser safety potential as the safety procedure control options”)
As per claim 7, Nister teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nister additionally teaches:
wherein the selecting the trajectory satisfies the ASIL greater than B based at least on the one or more first components being associated with the ASIL of B or less and the one or more second components being associated with the ASIL of B or less. (Nister at least [0233], [0285], [0189-290]) *Examiner’s note: redundant subcomponents, each designed to a lower ASIL level, can be combined into a higher ASIL level design using higher-level methodologies per ISO 26262 standards.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nister in view of US20200290533A1 ("Durkop").
As per claim 2, Nister teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nister teaches a third controller (Nister [0219]). Nister does not disclose:
the selecting the trajectory is performed using one or more third components that are associated with the ASIL greater than B.
Durkop teaches the aforementioned limitations (Durkop at least [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nister with the aforementioned limitations taught by Durkop with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve safety.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nister in view of US20210001881A1 ("Poledna/Steiner").
As per claim 3, Nister teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Nister does not disclose:
determining, using the one or more first components and based at least on the evaluating the first potential for collision with regard to the one or more trajectories, one or more first scores associated with the one or more trajectories; and determining, using the one or more second components and based at least on the evaluating the second potential for collision with regard to the one or more trajectories, one or more second scores associated with the one or more trajectories, wherein the selecting the trajectory is based at least on the one or more first scores and the one or more second scores.
Poledna/Steiner teaches the aforementioned limitations (Poledna/Steiner at least the abstract, [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nister with the aforementioned limitations taught by Poledna/Steiner with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art is silent on both of the following:
control constraint image indicative of one or more second controls that the machine may perform over the future time period and having a safety score that is at least as high as the safety procedure trajectory;
computing a second safety score for at least the trajectory of the one or more trajectories based at least on comparing the one or more controls to one or more valid controls determined using the safety procedure trajectory
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669