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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 4/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. The previous rejections under 35 USC 102 are withdrawn for claims 8-20, which were amended to incorporate allowable subject matter. The previous double patenting rejections have been withdrawn in light of the terminal disclaimer concurrently filed.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the Office has not shown that Nister teaches or suggests, at least, "evaluating, using one or more first processing 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; evaluating, using one or more second processing components different from the one or more first processing components also associated with an ASIL of B or less, a second potential for collision with regard to the one or more trajectories; [and] selecting, based at least on the evaluating using the one or more first processing components and the one or more second processing components, a trajectory from the one or more trajectories such that the selecting satisfies an ASIL greater than B” and “the Office has not shown that Nister teaches or suggests that "one or more processing components," which are separate from the sensors and evaluate one or more trajectories determined using the sensor data obtained using the sensors, operate at an "ASIL of B or less."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. ISO 26262 (2018) is an automotive industry standard practice which is required for passenger vehicles used on public roads (for sale) in most global markets, notably Europe and Japan. Adherence to the standards and practices of ISO 26262 is therefore mandatory for those markets. The Wikipedia page for ISO 26262 ASIL levels and decomposition (NPL provided, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_Safety_Integrity_Level#) summarizes the standard as applied in this application. To reach ASIL D, the highest level of safety for critical systems (such as collision control fail stops) can be achieved by decomposition combining the processing pipeline of multiple components of ASIL B or higher. ASIL B level of a subcomponent can be reached by the decomposition of multiple ASIL A processes. Therefore to reach ASIL D, ASIL B components are required, for which multiple sub components of ASIL A can be combined. Furthermore, Nister teaches processors and trajectory generator computational components ([0183], [0185]). Applying a well-known and industry standard requirement to a well-known (Nister) teaching would render the claim(s) obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190243371A1 ("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 processing 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 processing components and the one or more second processing 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], [0183], [0185])
Nister does not explicitly disclose:
evaluating, using one or more second processing 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 processing components and the one or more second processing 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 processing 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 processing 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 processing 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 processing components, one or more first controls associated with the one or more trajectories; determining, using the one or more second processing components, one or more second controls associated with one or more safety procedures; and determining, using the one or more second processing 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 processing 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 processing 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 processing 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
Claims 8-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 8-20, as amended, integrate the allowable subject matter previously indicated in the Non-Final Office Action.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 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
Prosecution Insights