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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 21 May 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 5, and 13 are independent.
Claims 1, 5, and 13 have been amended.
This FINAL action is in response to “Amendments and Remarks” received on 08 July 2026.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed 08 July 2026, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and were not wholly persuasive. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, the rejection is modified to incorporate different teachings of the same prior art. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
The combination of Ko et al. (US 20240051554 A1) and Arun et al. (US 20240149892 A1) results in a vehicle having a plurality of vehicle controllers which can perform autonomous driving and a plurality of trajectory generation systems, wherein each trajectory generation system has a main compute module and secondary compute module. The combination results in a vehicle with multiple redundant control systems that can control a vehicle and generate appropriate trajectories when any one controller and/or trajectory generation system fails. Furthermore, Arun et al. discloses that trajectories generated by one or more trajectory generation systems and/or trajectories generated by separate compute modules of a trajectory generation system can be prioritized based on an operation/failure state of a system or compute module to prioritize a trajectory generated by a properly functioning system ([0042]), which results in a primary operating mode where the main compute module of one or more trajectory generation system(s) generates a first trajectory with a first priority when operating properly and a second operating mode where the secondary compute module of the one or more trajectory generation system(s) generated a second trajectory if the main module is not functioning properly.
Final Office Action
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three-prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable over Ko et al. (US 20240051554 A1), hereinafter Ko, in view of Arun et al. (US 20240149892 A1), hereinafter Arun.
Regarding claim 1, Ko discloses:
A vehicle comprising ([0002], The present disclosure relates to a vehicle control apparatus and method, and more particularly, to a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) technique of an autonomous vehicle when a main controller fails during autonomous driving.):
a first computer system comprising a primary compute node configured to generate trajectories for the vehicle (Abstract, a second controller configured to perform primary control of autonomous driving of the vehicle; [0042], a second controller 200 that performs determination and primary (e.g., main) control of autonomous driving);
a second computer system comprising a first motion compute node configured to control the vehicle to follow the trajectories (Abstract, a first controller configured to control one or more safety features of a vehicle; [0042], a first controller 100 that performs control for safety of the vehicle);
and a third computer system comprising a second motion compute node configured to control the vehicle to follow the trajectories in response to a safety operation trigger comprising a fault at the first motion compute node (Abstract, a third controller configured to perform secondary control of the autonomous driving of the vehicle; [0042], a third controller 300 that performs determination and secondary (e.g., subordinately) control of autonomous driving);
wherein each of the first, second, and third computer systems comprises one or more processors and one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions ([0018], One or more exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure provide a vehicle control apparatus that includes one or more processors, and memory. The memory may store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the vehicle control apparatus to detect a failure of at least one of a main controller configured to perform primary control of autonomous driving of a vehicle, or an auxiliary controller configured to perform secondary control of the autonomous driving of the vehicle; and, based on detecting the failure of the at least one of the main controller or the auxiliary controller, perform an autonomous driving function of the vehicle);
wherein the instructions, when executed, implement an autonomous driving system that is configured for autonomous control of the vehicle ([0018], One or more exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure provide a vehicle control apparatus that includes one or more processors, and memory. The memory may store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the vehicle control apparatus to detect a failure of at least one of a main controller configured to perform primary control of autonomous driving of a vehicle, or an auxiliary controller configured to perform secondary control of the autonomous driving of the vehicle; and, based on detecting the failure of the at least one of the main controller or the auxiliary controller, perform an autonomous driving function of the vehicle);
and wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the first, second and third computer systems to perform operations comprising ([0018], One or more exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure provide a vehicle control apparatus that includes one or more processors, and memory. The memory may store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the vehicle control apparatus to detect a failure of at least one of a main controller configured to perform primary control of autonomous driving of a vehicle, or an auxiliary controller configured to perform secondary control of the autonomous driving of the vehicle; and, based on detecting the failure of the at least one of the main controller or the auxiliary controller, perform an autonomous driving function of the vehicle):
monitoring, by the second motion compute node, one or more vehicle components (Fig. 3; [0081], FIG. 3 discloses a chassis controller 101 as an example of the first controller 100, a main controller 201 as an example of the second controller 200, and a subcontroller 301 as an example of the third controller 300; [0082], The chassis controller 101 may monitor failure states of the main controller 201 and/or the subcontroller 301.);
in response to operability of one or more components, remaining, by the second motion compute node, in a first state wherein the second motion compute node uses a first safety operation mode in response to the safety operation trigger (Fig. 3; [0081], FIG. 3 discloses a chassis controller 101 as an example of the first controller 100, a main controller 201 as an example of the second controller 200, and a subcontroller 301 as an example of the third controller 300; [0082], The chassis controller 101 may monitor failure states of the main controller 201 and/or the subcontroller 301.);
and in response to a detection of a component fault at the one or more components, transitioning, by the second motion compute node, to a second state wherein the second motion compute node uses a second safety operation mode in response to the safety operation trigger (Fig. 3; [0081], FIG. 3 discloses a chassis controller 101 as an example of the first controller 100, a main controller 201 as an example of the second controller 200, and a subcontroller 301 as an example of the third controller 300; [0082], The chassis controller 101 may monitor failure states of the main controller 201 and/or the subcontroller 301.),
However, Ko does not specifically state:
wherein in the second safety operation mode, the second motion compute node applies brake and steering without following a trajectory computed by the primary compute node.
Arun teaches:
wherein in the second safety operation mode, the second motion compute node applies brake and steering without following a trajectory computed by the primary compute node (Fig. 5; [0021], A vehicle control system of an autonomous vehicle may receive trajectory information, e.g., trajectory updates, while operating. That is, a vehicle, while operating along a particular trajectory, may receive or otherwise obtain trajectory updates as more information, e.g., more current information, becomes available. The trajectory updates may be obtained or otherwise received from one or more trajectory generation systems of the vehicle. Each trajectory generation system may substantially independently generate trajectory updates for controlling the trajectory of a vehicle while the vehicle operates autonomously. When issues are detected within a vehicle, the processing of trajectory updates may be affected. In one embodiment, trajectory updates may be substantially disregarded when an issue that has a significant effect on the ability of the vehicle to operate safely is identified. In another embodiment, when a vehicle has an issue that does not have a significant effect on the ability of the vehicle to operate safely, one or more trajectory generation systems of the vehicle may be provided with information relating to the fault such that subsequent trajectory updates may effectively account for the issue; [0046], trajectory generation systems 550 include a main compute 550a, a secondary compute 550b, and a remote control interface 550c. Main compute 550a may include an autonomy system that is configured to generate a trajectory as well as trajectory updates. Secondary compute 550b may include a backup autonomy system that is configured to provide backup in the event of an issue with the autonomy system included in main compute 550a; [0052], Vehicle control system 338′ may be configured to substantially contemporaneously obtain multiple trajectory updates 548 from multiple trajectory generation systems 550. Once trajectory updates 548 are obtained, trajectory update validation and arbitration arrangement 438d′ may arbitrate between or among trajectory updates 548 to determine respective priorities and to process trajectory updates 548 based on the respective priorities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include trajectory updating based on component fault state as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that adjusts a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Ko does not specifically state:
wherein in the first safety operation mode, the second motion compute node follows a stopping trajectory computed by the primary compute node, and wherein in the second safety operation mode, the second motion compute node applies predetermined brake and steering settings without following the stopping trajectory computed by the primary compute node.
Arun teaches:
wherein in the first safety operation mode, the second motion compute node follows a stopping trajectory computed by the primary compute node, and wherein in the second safety operation mode, the second motion compute node applies predetermined brake and steering settings without following the stopping trajectory computed by the primary compute node (Fig. 5; [0021], A vehicle control system of an autonomous vehicle may receive trajectory information, e.g., trajectory updates, while operating. That is, a vehicle, while operating along a particular trajectory, may receive or otherwise obtain trajectory updates as more information, e.g., more current information, becomes available. The trajectory updates may be obtained or otherwise received from one or more trajectory generation systems of the vehicle. Each trajectory generation system may substantially independently generate trajectory updates for controlling the trajectory of a vehicle while the vehicle operates autonomously. When issues are detected within a vehicle, the processing of trajectory updates may be affected. In one embodiment, trajectory updates may be substantially disregarded when an issue that has a significant effect on the ability of the vehicle to operate safely is identified. In another embodiment, when a vehicle has an issue that does not have a significant effect on the ability of the vehicle to operate safely, one or more trajectory generation systems of the vehicle may be provided with information relating to the fault such that subsequent trajectory updates may effectively account for the issue; [0046], trajectory generation systems 550 include a main compute 550a, a secondary compute 550b, and a remote control interface 550c. Main compute 550a may include an autonomy system that is configured to generate a trajectory as well as trajectory updates. Secondary compute 550b may include a backup autonomy system that is configured to provide backup in the event of an issue with the autonomy system included in main compute 550a; [0052], Vehicle control system 338′ may be configured to substantially contemporaneously obtain multiple trajectory updates 548 from multiple trajectory generation systems 550. Once trajectory updates 548 are obtained, trajectory update validation and arbitration arrangement 438d′ may arbitrate between or among trajectory updates 548 to determine respective priorities and to process trajectory updates 548 based on the respective priorities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include trajectory updating based on component fault state as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that adjusts a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 3, Ko does not specifically state:
wherein the stopping trajectory comprises an active steering trajectory that includes a second steering angle different from a first steering angle at a time of the safety operation trigger, and wherein the stopping trajectory comprises a first deceleration less than a second deceleration used in the second safety operation mode.
Arun teaches:
wherein the stopping trajectory comprises an active steering trajectory that includes a second steering angle different from a first steering angle at a time of the safety operation trigger, and wherein the stopping trajectory comprises a first deceleration less than a second deceleration used in the second safety operation mode ([0052], Vehicle control system 338′ may be configured to substantially contemporaneously obtain multiple trajectory updates 548 from multiple trajectory generation systems 550. Once trajectory updates 548 are obtained, trajectory update validation and arbitration arrangement 438d′ may arbitrate between or among trajectory updates 548 to determine respective priorities and to process trajectory updates 548 based on the respective priorities. For example, a velocity spline of a trajectory may be updated based on a velocity update spline associated with trajectory updates 548. As will be understood by those skilled in the art, a spline may be a substantially smooth, piecewise polynomial or parametric curve function. A velocity spline may encode a desired vehicle velocity as a function of time, and a directional spline may encode a desired vehicle direction such as a steering angle or a vehicle heading as a function of time; [0053], A current trajectory and trajectory updates 548 may define or encode a desired vehicle position as a function of coordinates over time, e.g., as an x-direction position as a function of time and a y-direction position as a function of time. The current trajectory and trajectory updates 548 may include or encode other functions of vehicle dynamics including, but not limited to including, derivatives of velocity and directional splines, such as an acceleration spline or a derivative of a velocity spline and a jerk spline such as a derivative of an acceleration spline.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include trajectory updating based on component fault state as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that adjusts a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 4, Ko does not specifically state:
the operations further comprising, in the second state, applying one or more constraints on vehicle operations.
Arun teaches:
the operations further comprising, in the second state, applying one or more constraints on vehicle operations ([0041], A trajectory update may be validated using any suitable criteria including, but not limited to including, a current trajectory of a vehicle. For example, a trajectory update may be validated based upon whether the components of the trajectory update such as a velocity spline and/or a direction spline effectively satisfy one or more criteria such as a velocity limit. Alternatively, a trajectory update may be validated based upon whether the trajectory update satisfies one or more timing criteria, a vehicle status, and/or a speed limit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include trajectory updating based on component fault state as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that adjusts a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Ko discloses:
A method comprising ([0023], According to one or more exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure, a method may include determining, by a first controller of a vehicle, whether a second controller or a third controller fails during autonomous driving of the vehicle. The second controller may perform primary control of the autonomous driving of the vehicle, and the third controller may perform secondary control of the autonomous driving of the vehicle. The method may further include performing, by the first controller and based on determining that the second controller or the third controller has failed, an autonomous driving function of the vehicle.):
monitoring, in an autonomous vehicle equipped with at least two different safety operation modes, one or more autonomous vehicle components (Fig. 3; [0081], FIG. 3 discloses a chassis controller 101 as an example of the first controller 100, a main controller 201 as an example of the second controller 200, and a subcontroller 301 as an example of the third controller 300; [0082], The chassis controller 101 may monitor failure states of the main controller 201 and/or the subcontroller 301.);
in response to operability of the one or more autonomous vehicle components, initially remaining, by a backup motion compute node of the autonomous vehicle, in a first state wherein the autonomous vehicle responds to a safety operation trigger using a first safety operation mode (Fig. 3; [0081], FIG. 3 discloses a chassis controller 101 as an example of the first controller 100, a main controller 201 as an example of the second controller 200, and a subcontroller 301 as an example of the third controller 300; [0082], The chassis controller 101 may monitor failure states of the main controller 201 and/or the subcontroller 301.);
and subsequent to remaining in the first state, and in response to a detection of a component fault at the one or more autonomous vehicle components, transitioning, by the backup motion compute node, to a second state wherein the autonomous vehicle responds to the safety operation trigger using a second safety operation mode different from the first safety operation mode (Fig. 3; [0081], FIG. 3 discloses a chassis controller 101 as an example of the first controller 100, a main controller 201 as an example of the second controller 200, and a subcontroller 301 as an example of the third controller 300; [0082], The chassis controller 101 may monitor failure states of the main controller 201 and/or the subcontroller 301.),
However, Ko does not specifically state:
wherein in the second safety operation mode, the second motion compute node applies brake and steering settings without following a computed trajectory.
Arun teaches:
wherein in the second safety operation mode, the second motion compute node applies brake and steering settings without following a computed trajectory (Fig. 5; [0021], A vehicle control system of an autonomous vehicle may receive trajectory information, e.g., trajectory updates, while operating. That is, a vehicle, while operating along a particular trajectory, may receive or otherwise obtain trajectory updates as more information, e.g., more current information, becomes available. The trajectory updates may be obtained or otherwise received from one or more trajectory generation systems of the vehicle. Each trajectory generation system may substantially independently generate trajectory updates for controlling the trajectory of a vehicle while the vehicle operates autonomously. When issues are detected within a vehicle, the processing of trajectory updates may be affected. In one embodiment, trajectory updates may be substantially disregarded when an issue that has a significant effect on the ability of the vehicle to operate safely is identified. In another embodiment, when a vehicle has an issue that does not have a significant effect on the ability of the vehicle to operate safely, one or more trajectory generation systems of the vehicle may be provided with information relating to the fault such that subsequent trajectory updates may effectively account for the issue; [0046], trajectory generation systems 550 include a main compute 550a, a secondary compute 550b, and a remote control interface 550c. Main compute 550a may include an autonomy system that is configured to generate a trajectory as well as trajectory updates. Secondary compute 550b may include a backup autonomy system that is configured to provide backup in the event of an issue with the autonomy system included in main compute 550a; [0052], Vehicle control system 338′ may be configured to substantially contemporaneously obtain multiple trajectory updates 548 from multiple trajectory generation systems 550. Once trajectory updates 548 are obtained, trajectory update validation and arbitration arrangement 438d′ may arbitrate between or among trajectory updates 548 to determine respective priorities and to process trajectory updates 548 based on the respective priorities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include trajectory updating based on component fault state as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that adjusts a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Ko discloses:
wherein the autonomous vehicle is equipped with a primary motion compute node and the backup motion compute node, wherein the backup motion compute node is configured to activate in response to the safety operation trigger, and wherein the monitoring is performed at the backup motion compute node (Fig. 3; [0081], FIG. 3 discloses a chassis controller 101 as an example of the first controller 100, a main controller 201 as an example of the second controller 200, and a subcontroller 301 as an example of the third controller 300; [0082], The chassis controller 101 may monitor failure states of the main controller 201 and/or the subcontroller 301.).
Regarding claim 7, Ko does not specifically state:
wherein, in the first safety operation mode, the autonomous vehicle applies a computed stopping trajectory, and in the second safety operation mode, the autonomous vehicle applies predetermined brake and steering settings without following the computed stopping trajectory.
Arun teaches:
wherein, in the first safety operation mode, the autonomous vehicle applies a computed stopping trajectory, and in the second safety operation mode, the autonomous vehicle applies predetermined brake and steering settings without following the computed stopping trajectory (Fig. 5; [0021], A vehicle control system of an autonomous vehicle may receive trajectory information, e.g., trajectory updates, while operating. That is, a vehicle, while operating along a particular trajectory, may receive or otherwise obtain trajectory updates as more information, e.g., more current information, becomes available. The trajectory updates may be obtained or otherwise received from one or more trajectory generation systems of the vehicle. Each trajectory generation system may substantially independently generate trajectory updates for controlling the trajectory of a vehicle while the vehicle operates autonomously. When issues are detected within a vehicle, the processing of trajectory updates may be affected. In one embodiment, trajectory updates may be substantially disregarded when an issue that has a significant effect on the ability of the vehicle to operate safely is identified. In another embodiment, when a vehicle has an issue that does not have a significant effect on the ability of the vehicle to operate safely, one or more trajectory generation systems of the vehicle may be provided with information relating to the fault such that subsequent trajectory updates may effectively account for the issue; [0046], trajectory generation systems 550 include a main compute 550a, a secondary compute 550b, and a remote control interface 550c. Main compute 550a may include an autonomy system that is configured to generate a trajectory as well as trajectory updates. Secondary compute 550b may include a backup autonomy system that is configured to provide backup in the event of an issue with the autonomy system included in main compute 550a; [0052], Vehicle control system 338′ may be configured to substantially contemporaneously obtain multiple trajectory updates 548 from multiple trajectory generation systems 550. Once trajectory updates 548 are obtained, trajectory update validation and arbitration arrangement 438d′ may arbitrate between or among trajectory updates 548 to determine respective priorities and to process trajectory updates 548 based on the respective priorities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include trajectory updating based on component fault state as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that adjusts a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Ko does not specifically state:
wherein the computed stopping trajectory comprises an active steering trajectory that includes a second steering angle different from a first steering angle at a time of the safety operation trigger.
Arun teaches:
wherein the computed stopping trajectory comprises an active steering trajectory that includes a second steering angle different from a first steering angle at a time of the safety operation trigger ([0052], Vehicle control system 338′ may be configured to substantially contemporaneously obtain multiple trajectory updates 548 from multiple trajectory generation systems 550. Once trajectory updates 548 are obtained, trajectory update validation and arbitration arrangement 438d′ may arbitrate between or among trajectory updates 548 to determine respective priorities and to process trajectory updates 548 based on the respective priorities. For example, a velocity spline of a trajectory may be updated based on a velocity update spline associated with trajectory updates 548. As will be understood by those skilled in the art, a spline may be a substantially smooth, piecewise polynomial or parametric curve function. A velocity spline may encode a desired vehicle velocity as a function of time, and a directional spline may encode a desired vehicle direction such as a steering angle or a vehicle heading as a function of time; [0053], A current trajectory and trajectory updates 548 may define or encode a desired vehicle position as a function of coordinates over time, e.g., as an x-direction position as a function of time and a y-direction position as a function of time. The current trajectory and trajectory updates 548 may include or encode other functions of vehicle dynamics including, but not limited to including, derivatives of velocity and directional splines, such as an acceleration spline or a derivative of a velocity spline and a jerk spline such as a derivative of an acceleration spline.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include trajectory updating based on component fault state as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that adjusts a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 9, Ko does not specifically state:
wherein the computed stopping trajectory comprises a deceleration which is at least ten percent below a maximum deceleration of the autonomous vehicle.
Arun teaches:
wherein the computed stopping trajectory comprises a deceleration which is at least ten percent below a maximum deceleration of the autonomous vehicle ([0052], Vehicle control system 338′ may be configured to substantially contemporaneously obtain multiple trajectory updates 548 from multiple trajectory generation systems 550. Once trajectory updates 548 are obtained, trajectory update validation and arbitration arrangement 438d′ may arbitrate between or among trajectory updates 548 to determine respective priorities and to process trajectory updates 548 based on the respective priorities. For example, a velocity spline of a trajectory may be updated based on a velocity update spline associated with trajectory updates 548. As will be understood by those skilled in the art, a spline may be a substantially smooth, piecewise polynomial or parametric curve function. A velocity spline may encode a desired vehicle velocity as a function of time, and a directional spline may encode a desired vehicle direction such as a steering angle or a vehicle heading as a function of time; [0053], A current trajectory and trajectory updates 548 may define or encode a desired vehicle position as a function of coordinates over time, e.g., as an x-direction position as a function of time and a y-direction position as a function of time. The current trajectory and trajectory updates 548 may include or encode other functions of vehicle dynamics including, but not limited to including, derivatives of velocity and directional splines, such as an acceleration spline or a derivative of a velocity spline and a jerk spline such as a derivative of an acceleration spline.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include trajectory updating based on component fault state as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that adjusts a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Ko does not specifically state:
wherein the computed stopping trajectory comprises a shortened trajectory which is shorter than one or more other trajectories used by the autonomous vehicle.
Arun teaches:
wherein the computed stopping trajectory comprises a shortened trajectory which is shorter than one or more other trajectories used by the autonomous vehicle ([0041], A trajectory update may be validated using any suitable criteria including, but not limited to including, a current trajectory of a vehicle. For example, a trajectory update may be validated based upon whether the components of the trajectory update such as a velocity spline and/or a direction spline effectively satisfy one or more criteria such as a velocity limit. Alternatively, a trajectory update may be validated based upon whether the trajectory update satisfies one or more timing criteria, a vehicle status, and/or a speed limit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include trajectory updating based on component fault state as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that adjusts a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 11, Ko does not specifically state:
further comprising, subsequent to remaining in the first state, and in response to the component fault at the one or more autonomous vehicle components, applying one or more constraints on autonomous vehicle operations.
Arun teaches:
further comprising, subsequent to remaining in the first state, and in response to the component fault at the one or more autonomous vehicle components, applying one or more constraints on autonomous vehicle operations ([0041], A trajectory update may be validated using any suitable criteria including, but not limited to including, a current trajectory of a vehicle. For example, a trajectory update may be validated based upon whether the components of the trajectory update such as a velocity spline and/or a direction spline effectively satisfy one or more criteria such as a velocity limit. Alternatively, a trajectory update may be validated based upon whether the trajectory update satisfies one or more timing criteria, a vehicle status, and/or a speed limit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include trajectory updating based on component fault state as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that adjusts a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Ko does not specifically state:
wherein the one or more constraints comprise one or more of a passenger pickup constraint which limits passenger pickups by the autonomous vehicle, or a time constraint which limits an amount of time before an autonomous vehicle stop.
Arun teaches:
wherein the one or more constraints comprise one or more of a passenger pickup constraint which limits passenger pickups by the autonomous vehicle, or a time constraint which limits an amount of time before an autonomous vehicle stop ([0018], a vehicle control system may determine whether the fault is a non-critical fault that enables the vehicle to continue operating, a critical fault that effectively requires the vehicle to perform an immediate stop, or an intermediate fault that allows the vehicle to operate for a period of time to identify a safe stopping location and come to a controlled, safe stop.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include trajectory updating based on component fault state as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that adjusts a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 13, Ko discloses:
monitoring one or more components of an autonomous vehicle (Fig. 3; [0081], FIG. 3 discloses a chassis controller 101 as an example of the first controller 100, a main controller 201 as an example of the second controller 200, and a subcontroller 301 as an example of the third controller 300; [0082], The chassis controller 101 may monitor failure states of the main controller 201 and/or the subcontroller 301.);
in response to operability of the one or more components, causing a backup motion compute node of the autonomous vehicle to remain in a first state wherein the autonomous vehicle responds to a safety operation trigger using a first safety operation mode (Fig. 3; [0081], FIG. 3 discloses a chassis controller 101 as an example of the first controller 100, a main controller 201 as an example of the second controller 200, and a subcontroller 301 as an example of the third controller 300; [0082], The chassis controller 101 may monitor failure states of the main controller 201 and/or the subcontroller 301.);
and in response to a detection of a component fault at the one or more components, transitioning the backup motion compute node into a second state wherein the autonomous vehicle responds to the safety operation trigger using a second safety operation mode (Fig. 3; [0081], FIG. 3 discloses a chassis controller 101 as an example of the first controller 100, a main controller 201 as an example of the second controller 200, and a subcontroller 301 as an example of the third controller 300; [0082], The chassis controller 101 may monitor failure states of the main controller 201 and/or the subcontroller 301.).
However, Ko does not specifically state:
One or more non transitory computer readable media storing instructions executable by a processor, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
wherein in the second safety operation mode, the second motion compute node applies brake and steering settings without following a computed trajectory.
Arun teaches:
One or more non transitory computer readable media storing instructions executable by a processor, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to perform operations comprising ([0016], In accordance with another aspect, a vehicle includes logic encoded in one or more tangible non-transitory, computer-readable media for execution):
wherein in the second safety operation mode, the second motion compute node applies brake and steering settings without following a computed trajectory (Fig. 5; [0021], A vehicle control system of an autonomous vehicle may receive trajectory information, e.g., trajectory updates, while operating. That is, a vehicle, while operating along a particular trajectory, may receive or otherwise obtain trajectory updates as more information, e.g., more current information, becomes available. The trajectory updates may be obtained or otherwise received from one or more trajectory generation systems of the vehicle. Each trajectory generation system may substantially independently generate trajectory updates for controlling the trajectory of a vehicle while the vehicle operates autonomously. When issues are detected within a vehicle, the processing of trajectory updates may be affected. In one embodiment, trajectory updates may be substantially disregarded when an issue that has a significant effect on the ability of the vehicle to operate safely is identified. In another embodiment, when a vehicle has an issue that does not have a significant effect on the ability of the vehicle to operate safely, one or more trajectory generation systems of the vehicle may be provided with information relating to the fault such that subsequent trajectory updates may effectively account for the issue; [0046], trajectory generation systems 550 include a main compute 550a, a secondary compute 550b, and a remote control interface 550c. Main compute 550a may include an autonomy system that is configured to generate a trajectory as well as trajectory updates. Secondary compute 550b may include a backup autonomy system that is configured to provide backup in the event of an issue with the autonomy system included in main compute 550a; [0052], Vehicle control system 338′ may be configured to substantially contemporaneously obtain multiple trajectory updates 548 from multiple trajectory generation systems 550. Once trajectory updates 548 are obtained, trajectory update validation and arbitration arrangement 438d′ may arbitrate between or among trajectory updates 548 to determine respective priorities and to process trajectory updates 548 based on the respective priorities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include non-transitory computer-readable storage media as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can store instructions after power loss events and adjust a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and non-transitory computer-readable storage media and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Ko in view of Arun teaches:
wherein the autonomous vehicle is equipped with a primary motion compute node and the backup motion compute node, wherein the backup motion compute node is configured to activate in response to the safety operation trigger, and wherein the monitoring is performed at the backup motion compute node (Ko: Fig. 3; [0081], FIG. 3 discloses a chassis controller 101 as an example of the first controller 100, a main controller 201 as an example of the second controller 200, and a subcontroller 301 as an example of the third controller 300; [0082], The chassis controller 101 may monitor failure states of the main controller 201 and/or the subcontroller 301.).
Regarding claim 15, Ko does not specifically state:
wherein, in the first safety operation mode, the autonomous vehicle follows a computed trajectory, and in the second safety operation mode, the autonomous vehicle applies a predetermined steering setting without following the computed trajectory.
Arun teaches:
wherein, in the first safety operation mode, the autonomous vehicle follows a computed trajectory, and in the second safety operation mode, the autonomous vehicle applies a predetermined steering setting without following the computed trajectory (Fig. 5; [0021], A vehicle control system of an autonomous vehicle may receive trajectory information, e.g., trajectory updates, while operating. That is, a vehicle, while operating along a particular trajectory, may receive or otherwise obtain trajectory updates as more information, e.g., more current information, becomes available. The trajectory updates may be obtained or otherwise received from one or more trajectory generation systems of the vehicle. Each trajectory generation system may substantially independently generate trajectory updates for controlling the trajectory of a vehicle while the vehicle operates autonomously. When issues are detected within a vehicle, the processing of trajectory updates may be affected. In one embodiment, trajectory updates may be substantially disregarded when an issue that has a significant effect on the ability of the vehicle to operate safely is identified. In another embodiment, when a vehicle has an issue that does not have a significant effect on the ability of the vehicle to operate safely, one or more trajectory generation systems of the vehicle may be provided with information relating to the fault such that subsequent trajectory updates may effectively account for the issue; [0046], trajectory generation systems 550 include a main compute 550a, a secondary compute 550b, and a remote control interface 550c. Main compute 550a may include an autonomy system that is configured to generate a trajectory as well as trajectory updates. Secondary compute 550b may include a backup autonomy system that is configured to provide backup in the event of an issue with the autonomy system included in main compute 550a; [0052], Vehicle control system 338′ may be configured to substantially contemporaneously obtain multiple trajectory updates 548 from multiple trajectory generation systems 550. Once trajectory updates 548 are obtained, trajectory update validation and arbitration arrangement 438d′ may arbitrate between or among trajectory updates 548 to determine respective priorities and to process trajectory updates 548 based on the respective priorities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include trajectory updating based on component fault state as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that adjusts a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 16, Ko does not specifically state:
wherein the computed stopping trajectory comprises an active steering trajectory that includes a second steering angle different from a first steering angle at a time of the fault.
Arun teaches:
wherein the computed stopping trajectory comprises an active steering trajectory that includes a second steering angle different from a first steering angle at a time of the fault ([0052], Vehicle control system 338′ may be configured to substantially contemporaneously obtain multiple trajectory updates 548 from multiple trajectory generation systems 550. Once trajectory updates 548 are obtained, trajectory update validation and arbitration arrangement 438d′ may arbitrate between or among trajectory updates 548 to determine respective priorities and to process trajectory updates 548 based on the respective priorities. For example, a velocity spline of a trajectory may be updated based on a velocity update spline associated with trajectory updates 548. As will be understood by those skilled in the art, a spline may be a substantially smooth, piecewise polynomial or parametric curve function. A velocity spline may encode a desired vehicle velocity as a function of time, and a directional spline may encode a desired vehicle direction such as a steering angle or a vehicle heading as a function of time; [0053], A current trajectory and trajectory updates 548 may define or encode a desired vehicle position as a function of coordinates over time, e.g., as an x-direction position as a function of time and a y-direction position as a function of time. The current trajectory and trajectory updates 548 may include or encode other functions of vehicle dynamics including, but not limited to including, derivatives of velocity and directional splines, such as an acceleration spline or a derivative of a velocity spline and a jerk spline such as a derivative of an acceleration spline.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include trajectory updating based on component fault state as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that adjusts a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 17, Ko does not specifically state:
wherein the computed trajectory comprises a first deceleration which is below a second deceleration used in the second safety operation mode.
Arun teaches:
wherein the computed trajectory comprises a first deceleration which is below a second deceleration used in the second safety operation mode. ([0052], Vehicle control system 338′ may be configured to substantially contemporaneously obtain multiple trajectory updates 548 from multiple trajectory generation systems 550. Once trajectory updates 548 are obtained, trajectory update validation and arbitration arrangement 438d′ may arbitrate between or among trajectory updates 548 to determine respective priorities and to process trajectory updates 548 based on the respective priorities. For example, a velocity spline of a trajectory may be updated based on a velocity update spline associated with trajectory updates 548. As will be understood by those skilled in the art, a spline may be a substantially smooth, piecewise polynomial or parametric curve function. A velocity spline may encode a desired vehicle velocity as a function of time, and a directional spline may encode a desired vehicle direction such as a steering angle or a vehicle heading as a function of time; [0053], A current trajectory and trajectory updates 548 may define or encode a desired vehicle position as a function of coordinates over time, e.g., as an x-direction position as a function of time and a y-direction position as a function of time. The current trajectory and trajectory updates 548 may include or encode other functions of vehicle dynamics including, but not limited to including, derivatives of velocity and directional splines, such as an acceleration spline or a derivative of a velocity spline and a jerk spline such as a derivative of an acceleration spline.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include trajectory updating based on component fault state as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that adjusts a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 18, Ko does not specifically state:
wherein the computed stopping trajectory comprises a shortened trajectory which is shorter than one or more other trajectories used by the autonomous vehicle.
Arun teaches:
wherein the computed stopping trajectory comprises a shortened trajectory which is shorter than one or more other trajectories used by the autonomous vehicle ([0041], A trajectory update may be validated using any suitable criteria including, but not limited to including, a current trajectory of a vehicle. For example, a trajectory update may be validated based upon whether the components of the trajectory update such as a velocity spline and/or a direction spline effectively satisfy one or more criteria such as a velocity limit. Alternatively, a trajectory update may be validated based upon whether the trajectory update satisfies one or more timing criteria, a vehicle status, and/or a speed limit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include trajectory updating based on component fault state as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that adjusts a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 19, Ko does not specifically state:
wherein the operations further comprise applying, in response to the component fault, one or more constraints on autonomous vehicle operations.
Arun teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise applying, in response to the component fault, one or more constraints on autonomous vehicle operations ([0041], A trajectory update may be validated using any suitable criteria including, but not limited to including, a current trajectory of a vehicle. For example, a trajectory update may be validated based upon whether the components of the trajectory update such as a velocity spline and/or a direction spline effectively satisfy one or more criteria such as a velocity limit. Alternatively, a trajectory update may be validated based upon whether the trajectory update satisfies one or more timing criteria, a vehicle status, and/or a speed limit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include trajectory updating based on component fault state as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that adjusts a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 20, Ko does not specifically state:
wherein the one or more constraints comprise one or more of a passenger pickup constraint which limits passenger pickups by the autonomous vehicle, or a time constraint which limits an amount of time before an autonomous vehicle stop.
Arun teaches:
wherein the one or more constraints comprise one or more of a passenger pickup constraint which limits passenger pickups by the autonomous vehicle, or a time constraint which limits an amount of time before an autonomous vehicle stop ([0018], a vehicle control system may determine whether the fault is a non-critical fault that enables the vehicle to continue operating, a critical fault that effectively requires the vehicle to perform an immediate stop, or an intermediate fault that allows the vehicle to operate for a period of time to identify a safe stopping location and come to a controlled, safe stop.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arun into the invention of Ko to include trajectory updating based on component fault state as Arun discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that adjusts a vehicle performance and pathing to continue safe operation in the event of a component exhibiting fault. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of the separate controllers which oversee operation of a vehicle and component monitoring as disclosed by Ko and vehicle trajectory updating based on component fault state(s) as taught by Arun. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Documents Considered but Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 20210347371 A1) discloses a method for controlling autonomous driving of an autonomous driving vehicle including a first autonomous driving controller and an second autonomous driving controller which are provided in a dual structure, includes: monitoring a system fault using the first autonomous driving controller during the second driving; switching over to the second autonomous driving controller when the system fault is detected; and entering a Minimum Risk Management (MRM) mode to control deceleration of the autonomous driving vehicle. When the fault of the autonomous driving vehicle occurs, a risk is minimized. Sarkar et al. (US 20210300417 A1) a method and road assistance system for safe handling an autonomous vehicle during emergency failure situation is disclosed. The road assistance system establishes a network connection with autonomous vehicle, where request for the network connection is transmitted by the autonomous vehicle on detection of operation failures. Upon establishing the network connection with the autonomous vehicle, vehicle failure information is received from the autonomous vehicle. The road assistance system determines type of failure in the autonomous vehicle based on the vehicle failure information. Further, current surrounding environment information is obtained for the autonomous vehicle from one of autonomous vehicle and one or more sensing devices located in proximity to the autonomous vehicle. Thereafter, the road assistance system generates at least one control instruction based on the type of failure and the current surrounding environment information. The at least one control instruction is provided to the autonomous vehicle for execution during the emergency failure situation. Batts et al. (US 20200339151 A1) discloses techniques for implementing a vehicle response to sensor failure. In general, one innovative aspect of the subject matter described in this specification can be embodied in methods that include receiving information from a plurality of sensors coupled to a vehicle, determining that a level of confidence of the received information from at least one sensor of a first subset of sensors of the plurality of sensors is less than a first threshold, comparing a number of sensors in the first subset of sensors to a second threshold, and adjusting the driving capability of the vehicle to rely on information received from a second subset of sensors of the plurality of sensors, wherein the second subset of sensors excludes the at least one sensor of the first subset of sensors. Foster et al. (US 20220365530 A1) an autonomous vehicle (AV) including features that allow the AV to comply with applicable regulations and statues for performing safe driving operation. An example method for operating an AV includes receiving, by a computer located in the AV, sensor data that indicates a condition of one or more devices in the AV or of a roadway on which the autonomous vehicle is operating; and causing, by the computer and based on the sensor data, the autonomous vehicle to operate in accordance with a maneuver by sending instructions to one or more devices in the autonomous vehicle, wherein the maneuver is configured to bring the autonomous vehicle to a complete stop. In some embodiments, the maneuver may be selected from a plurality of maneuvers in response to determining an occurrence of a fault condition based on the sensor data.
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 IZCALLI ANDRE RIOS-AGUIRRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 - 17:00 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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/I.A.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights