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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 of US application 19/028,984 filed 1/17/25 were examined. Examiner filed a non-final rejection on 3/24/26.
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 6/24/26. Claims 1, 9, 11, 13, and 20 were amended. Claim 10 was cancelled. Claim 21 was newly added. Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim objection over a minor informality: the amendment to claim 9 has resolved the informality. The claim objection is therefore withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103: Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/26 (hereinafter referred to as the “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, applicant seems to be under the impression that applicant’s amendments to these claims have encapsulated the “additional cost functions” of paragraph [0048] of the specification, which is what examiner believed would overcome the prior art of record as per the 6/12/26 interview summary. But there is a point of miscommunication here: examiner does not believe that the existence of a single cost function overcomes the art. Rather, the examiner believes that the existence of an additional cost function (so that there are at least two of them recited in the claims) would overcome the prior art. But this is not what is currently recited in the claims; instead, the claims currently recite the existence of only one cost function. This does not overcome the Herbach (US 20190155283 A1) reference. In particular:
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, Herbach discloses An autonomous vehicle (See at least Fig. 1 in Herbach: Herbach discloses a vehicle 100 [See at least Herbach, 0027]. Herbach further discloses computing device 110 may be an autonomous driving computing system incorporated into vehicle 100 [See at least Herbach, 0034]) comprising:
one or more processors (See at least Fig. 1 in Herbach: Herbach discloses one or more processors of the computing devices 110 [See at least Herbach, 0095]);
a memory comprising one or more computer-readable media, the memory storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the autonomous vehicle to perform operations (See at least Fig. 14 in Herbach: Herbach discloses a flow diagram 1400 that may be performed by one or more processors, such as one or more processors of the computing devices 110, to maneuver a vehicle in an autonomous driving mode [See at least Herbach, 0095]) comprising:
receiving state data corresponding to a state of an autonomous vehicle (See at least Fig. 14 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that at block 1410 the vehicle needs to pullover is determined based on a first input [See at least Herbach, 0095]. The “first input” is a state);
determining that one or more vehicle stoppage conditions are satisfied based at least in part on the state data, wherein the one or more vehicle stoppage conditions indicate that the autonomous vehicle is to stop traveling (See at least Fig. 14 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that at block 1410 the vehicle needs to pullover is determined based on a first input [See at least Herbach, 0095]);
determining, based at least in part on the state data, a severity level for the one or more satisfied vehicle stoppage conditions (See at least Fig. 14 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that At block 1420, a severity level corresponding to the first input is identified [See at least Herbach, 0095]), wherein the severity level is:
a first severity level whereby the autonomous vehicle is to stop in a current lane of travel (See at least Fig. 13 in Herbach: Herbach discloses For the highest severity level, the computing devices 110 may simply stop the vehicle immediately in lane 1114 [See at least Herbach, 0087]), or
a second severity level whereby the autonomous vehicle is to travel to a stopping location outside the current lane of travel (See at least Fig. 13 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that for a low severity level, such as “Severity Level 1” or “Severity Level 2” the computing devices 110 may maneuver the vehicle to pull over after bounding box 1244 (or in parking spot 1140 shown in FIG. 11) as these severity levels may have the most restrictive requirements for the vehicle's behavior and pull over location in the Set of Requirements A or B [See at least Herbach, 0087]. Herbach further discloses that For a slightly higher severity level, such as “Severity Level 3” the computing devices 110 may maneuver the vehicle to pull over or between bounding boxes 1342 and 1344 (or in parking area 1138 shown in FIG. 11) as the Set of Requirements C may allow the vehicle to take more aggressive actions in order to pull the vehicle over sooner than either Set of Requirements A or B [See at least Herbach, 0087]. Herbach further discloses that For a higher severity level, such as “Severity Level 4” the computing devices 110 may maneuver the vehicle into lane 1112 and pull behind bounding box 1340 (or in parking spot 1130 as shown in FIG. 11) [See at least Herbach, 0087]);
introducing, based at least in part on the severity level (See at least Fig. 14 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that At block 1430, a set of requirements is identified based on the severity level [See at least Herbach, 0095]. Herbach further discloses that At block 1440, search is performed over a map to identify a location for the vehicle to pull over that meets the set of requirements [See at least Herbach, 0095]), a cost function into a motion planning process of a motion planning system of the autonomous vehicle (Herbach discloses that a forward graph search may be performed from the current position of the vehicle to identify the costs of different pull over spots relative to the current position of the vehicle, and a backward search may be performed from a current destination of the vehicle (i.e. a pickup location, drop off location, service location, etc.) to identify the costs of the different pull over spots relative to the current destination [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Herbach further discloses that Costs may be assessed, for instance using typical routing cost analyses such as the time and/or driving distance to reach a location, the different types of maneuvers, etc. [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Herbach further discloses that The computing devices may then identify the location that minimizes a weighted sum of the costs of the two searches and set that as the pull over location for the vehicle [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Because the cost function has not yet been used up to this point, it may be regarded as “introduced” at this point in the process);
generating, by the motion planning system and based at least in part on the cost function (Herbach discloses that a forward graph search may be performed from the current position of the vehicle to identify the costs of different pull over spots relative to the current position of the vehicle, and a backward search may be performed from a current destination of the vehicle (i.e. a pickup location, drop off location, service location, etc.) to identify the costs of the different pull over spots relative to the current destination [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Herbach further discloses that Costs may be assessed, for instance using typical routing cost analyses such as the time and/or driving distance to reach a location, the different types of maneuvers, etc. [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Herbach further discloses that The computing devices may then identify the location that minimizes a weighted sum of the costs of the two searches and set that as the pull over location for the vehicle [See at least Herbach, 0088]), one or more trajectories for the autonomous vehicle (See at least Fig. 14 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that At block 1450, the vehicle is maneuvered in order to pull over at the location [See at least Herbach, 0095]); and
controlling autonomous driving of the autonomous vehicle in accordance with the one or more trajectories (See at least Fig. 14 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that At block 1450, the vehicle is maneuvered in order to pull over at the location [See at least Herbach, 0095]).
Accordingly, the claims do not overcome the prior art of record.
Examiner’s suggestion to help applicant overcome the prior art of record: applicant can use the following amendments to claims 1 and 12, modeled off of the language of paragraph [0048], to overcome the prior art of record:
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method of autonomous vehicle operation, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving state data corresponding to a state of an autonomous vehicle;
determining that one or more vehicle stoppage conditions are satisfied based at least in part on the state data, wherein the one or more vehicle stoppage conditions indicate that the autonomous vehicle is to stop traveling;
determining, based at least in part on the state data, a severity level for the one or more satisfied vehicle stoppage conditions, wherein the severity level is:
a first severity level whereby the autonomous vehicle is to stop in a current lane of travel, or
a second severity level whereby the autonomous vehicle is to travel to a stopping location outside the current lane of travel;
introducing, based at least in part on the severity level, a first cost function into a motion planning process of a motion planning system of the autonomous vehicle;
introducing a second cost function into the motion planning process to cause the motion planning process to satisfy a constraint;
generating, by the motion planning system and based at least in part on the cost function, one or more trajectories for the autonomous vehicle; and
controlling autonomous driving of the autonomous vehicle in accordance with the one or more trajectories.
12. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 11, comprising:
determining the severity level based on the state of the hardware component;
determining [[a]] the constraint based at least in part on the severity level; and
selecting the second cost function based at least in part on the constraint.
The above amendments would result in claim 1 overcoming the prior art of record. Similar amendments could be made to claims 13 and 20 to allow them to overcome the prior art of record too. However, further search and consideration will be required before any determinations of allowability can be made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Herbach et al. (US 20190155283 A1), hereinafter referred to as Herbach. Where appropriate, claims with similar limitations are grouped together for legibility. It will be appreciated that all claims in such groups are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, Herbach discloses An autonomous vehicle (See at least Fig. 1 in Herbach: Herbach discloses a vehicle 100 [See at least Herbach, 0027]. Herbach further discloses computing device 110 may be an autonomous driving computing system incorporated into vehicle 100 [See at least Herbach, 0034]) comprising:
one or more processors (See at least Fig. 1 in Herbach: Herbach discloses one or more processors of the computing devices 110 [See at least Herbach, 0095]);
a memory comprising one or more computer-readable media, the memory storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the autonomous vehicle to perform operations (See at least Fig. 14 in Herbach: Herbach discloses a flow diagram 1400 that may be performed by one or more processors, such as one or more processors of the computing devices 110, to maneuver a vehicle in an autonomous driving mode [See at least Herbach, 0095]) comprising:
receiving state data corresponding to a state of an autonomous vehicle (See at least Fig. 14 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that at block 1410 the vehicle needs to pullover is determined based on a first input [See at least Herbach, 0095]. The “first input” is a state);
determining that one or more vehicle stoppage conditions are satisfied based at least in part on the state data, wherein the one or more vehicle stoppage conditions indicate that the autonomous vehicle is to stop traveling (See at least Fig. 14 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that at block 1410 the vehicle needs to pullover is determined based on a first input [See at least Herbach, 0095]);
determining, based at least in part on the state data, a severity level for the one or more satisfied vehicle stoppage conditions (See at least Fig. 14 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that At block 1420, a severity level corresponding to the first input is identified [See at least Herbach, 0095]), wherein the severity level is:
a first severity level whereby the autonomous vehicle is to stop in a current lane of travel (See at least Fig. 13 in Herbach: Herbach discloses For the highest severity level, the computing devices 110 may simply stop the vehicle immediately in lane 1114 [See at least Herbach, 0087]), or
a second severity level whereby the autonomous vehicle is to travel to a stopping location outside the current lane of travel (See at least Fig. 13 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that for a low severity level, such as “Severity Level 1” or “Severity Level 2” the computing devices 110 may maneuver the vehicle to pull over after bounding box 1244 (or in parking spot 1140 shown in FIG. 11) as these severity levels may have the most restrictive requirements for the vehicle's behavior and pull over location in the Set of Requirements A or B [See at least Herbach, 0087]. Herbach further discloses that For a slightly higher severity level, such as “Severity Level 3” the computing devices 110 may maneuver the vehicle to pull over or between bounding boxes 1342 and 1344 (or in parking area 1138 shown in FIG. 11) as the Set of Requirements C may allow the vehicle to take more aggressive actions in order to pull the vehicle over sooner than either Set of Requirements A or B [See at least Herbach, 0087]. Herbach further discloses that For a higher severity level, such as “Severity Level 4” the computing devices 110 may maneuver the vehicle into lane 1112 and pull behind bounding box 1340 (or in parking spot 1130 as shown in FIG. 11) [See at least Herbach, 0087]);
introducing, based at least in part on the severity level (See at least Fig. 14 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that At block 1430, a set of requirements is identified based on the severity level [See at least Herbach, 0095]. Herbach further discloses that At block 1440, search is performed over a map to identify a location for the vehicle to pull over that meets the set of requirements [See at least Herbach, 0095]), a cost function into a motion planning process of a motion planning system of the autonomous vehicle (Herbach discloses that a forward graph search may be performed from the current position of the vehicle to identify the costs of different pull over spots relative to the current position of the vehicle, and a backward search may be performed from a current destination of the vehicle (i.e. a pickup location, drop off location, service location, etc.) to identify the costs of the different pull over spots relative to the current destination [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Herbach further discloses that Costs may be assessed, for instance using typical routing cost analyses such as the time and/or driving distance to reach a location, the different types of maneuvers, etc. [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Herbach further discloses that The computing devices may then identify the location that minimizes a weighted sum of the costs of the two searches and set that as the pull over location for the vehicle [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Because the cost function has not yet been used up to this point, it may be regarded as “introduced” at this point in the process);
generating, by the motion planning system and based at least in part on the cost function (Herbach discloses that a forward graph search may be performed from the current position of the vehicle to identify the costs of different pull over spots relative to the current position of the vehicle, and a backward search may be performed from a current destination of the vehicle (i.e. a pickup location, drop off location, service location, etc.) to identify the costs of the different pull over spots relative to the current destination [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Herbach further discloses that Costs may be assessed, for instance using typical routing cost analyses such as the time and/or driving distance to reach a location, the different types of maneuvers, etc. [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Herbach further discloses that The computing devices may then identify the location that minimizes a weighted sum of the costs of the two searches and set that as the pull over location for the vehicle [See at least Herbach, 0088]), one or more trajectories for the autonomous vehicle (See at least Fig. 14 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that At block 1450, the vehicle is maneuvered in order to pull over at the location [See at least Herbach, 0095]); and
controlling autonomous driving of the autonomous vehicle in accordance with the one or more trajectories (See at least Fig. 14 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that At block 1450, the vehicle is maneuvered in order to pull over at the location [See at least Herbach, 0095]).
Regarding claim 4, Herbach discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more trajectories is associated with a lane change (See at least Fig. 14 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that At block 1450, the vehicle is maneuvered in order to pull over at the location [See at least Herbach, 0095]. Also see at least Fig. 13 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that for a low severity level, such as “Severity Level 1” or “Severity Level 2” the computing devices 110 may maneuver the vehicle to pull over after bounding box 1244 (or in parking spot 1140 shown in FIG. 11) as these severity levels may have the most restrictive requirements for the vehicle's behavior and pull over location in the Set of Requirements A or B [See at least Herbach, 0087]. Herbach further discloses that For a slightly higher severity level, such as “Severity Level 3” the computing devices 110 may maneuver the vehicle to pull over or between bounding boxes 1342 and 1344 (or in parking area 1138 shown in FIG. 11) as the Set of Requirements C may allow the vehicle to take more aggressive actions in order to pull the vehicle over sooner than either Set of Requirements A or B [See at least Herbach, 0087]. Herbach further discloses that For a higher severity level, such as “Severity Level 4” the computing devices 110 may maneuver the vehicle into lane 1112 and pull behind bounding box 1340 (or in parking spot 1130 as shown in FIG. 11) [See at least Herbach, 0087])).
Regarding claim 5, Herbach discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more trajectories is associated with pulling over to a shoulder (Herbach discloses that For a slightly lower severity level, such as “Severity Level 3” the vehicle may be moved across one or more other lanes in order to reach a shoulder area [See at least Herbach, 0075]. Also see at least Fig. 11 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that pull over spots 1130, 1132, 1134, 1136, 1138, 1140 merely correspond to a shoulder area where vehicle 120 could lawfully park for some period of time [See at least Herbach, 0081]).
Regarding claim 6, Herbach discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising communicating with a computing system that is remote from the autonomous vehicle (See at least Fig. 2 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that When a pullover is required based on a message received from a remote system such as a dispatching server or remote operator, such as concierge 242 using concierge work station 240, the message itself may identify a severity level [See at least Herbach, 0069]. Herbach further discloses that if a user requests a pullover from a concierge or live help operator, the live help operator can define the severity level, define the set of requirements, and/or event direct the vehicle to a particular pullover location [See at least Herbach, 0094]).
Regarding claim 7, Herbach discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 6, comprising requesting assistance for the autonomous vehicle or a passenger of the autonomous vehicle (See at least Fig. 2 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that When a pullover is required based on a message received from a remote system such as a dispatching server or remote operator, such as concierge 242 using concierge work station 240, the message itself may identify a severity level [See at least Herbach, 0069]. Herbach further discloses that if a user requests a pullover from a concierge or live help operator, the live help operator can define the severity level, define the set of requirements, and/or event direct the vehicle to a particular pullover location [See at least Herbach, 0094]).
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Herbach discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the state data is indicative of a state of a hardware component of the autonomous vehicle (See at least Fig. 9 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that different types of pullovers determined from information reported to the vehicle's computing devices by various systems of the vehicle may have different severity levels [See at least Herbach, 0070]. Herbach further discloses that, In this regard, more critical faults may result in higher severity levels as shown in Table 900 [See at least Herbach, 0070]. Herbach further discloses that, For instance, a critical system failure such as a complete failure of the deceleration system may have a higher severity than a failure of a redundant radar unit [See at least Herbach, 0070]).
Regarding claim 11, Herbach discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 10, comprising selecting the cost function (Herbach discloses that a forward graph search may be performed from the current position of the vehicle to identify the costs of different pull over spots relative to the current position of the vehicle, and a backward search may be performed from a current destination of the vehicle (i.e. a pickup location, drop off location, service location, etc.) to identify the costs of the different pull over spots relative to the current destination [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Herbach further discloses that Costs may be assessed, for instance using typical routing cost analyses such as the time and/or driving distance to reach a location, the different types of maneuvers, etc. [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Herbach further discloses that The computing devices may then identify the location that minimizes a weighted sum of the costs of the two searches and set that as the pull over location for the vehicle [See at least Herbach, 0088]. The cost function with the inputs that minimize the weighted sum may be regarded as “selected”) based at least in part on the state of the hardware component (See at least Fig. 9 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that different types of pullovers determined from information reported to the vehicle's computing devices by various systems of the vehicle may have different severity levels [See at least Herbach, 0070]. Also see at least Fig. 14 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that At block 1430, a set of requirements is identified based on the severity level [See at least Herbach, 0095]. Herbach further discloses that At block 1440, search is performed over a map to identify a location for the vehicle to pull over that meets the set of requirements [See at least Herbach, 0095]. It will therefore be appreciated that all of the route calculations, included those pertaining to cost functions, occur based on the state of the hardware components).
Regarding claim 12, Herbach discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 11, comprising:
determining the severity level based on the state of the hardware component (See at least Fig. 9 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that different types of pullovers determined from information reported to the vehicle's computing devices by various systems of the vehicle may have different severity levels [See at least Herbach, 0070]. Herbach further discloses that, In this regard, more critical faults may result in higher severity levels as shown in Table 900 [See at least Herbach, 0070]. Herbach further discloses that, For instance, a critical system failure such as a complete failure of the deceleration system may have a higher severity than a failure of a redundant radar unit [See at least Herbach, 0070]);
determining a constraint based at least in part on the severity level (Herbach discloses that a forward graph search may be performed from the current position of the vehicle to identify the costs of different pull over spots relative to the current position of the vehicle, and a backward search may be performed from a current destination of the vehicle (i.e. a pickup location, drop off location, service location, etc.) to identify the costs of the different pull over spots relative to the current destination [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Herbach further discloses that Costs may be assessed, for instance using typical routing cost analyses such as the time and/or driving distance to reach a location, the different types of maneuvers, etc. [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Each of these factors may be regarded as constraints, and their consideration is only triggered because of the severity of the issue, which determines what their values will be); and
selecting the cost function based at least in part on the constraint (Herbach further discloses that The computing devices may then identify the location that minimizes a weighted sum of the costs of the two searches and set that as the pull over location for the vehicle [See at least Herbach, 0088]. This may be regarded as selection of a cost function with particular inputs based on the above mentioned constraints of [Herbach, 0088]).
Regarding claim 14, Herbach discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 8, comprising generating the one or more trajectories based at least in part on a cost function (Herbach discloses that a forward graph search may be performed from the current position of the vehicle to identify the costs of different pull over spots relative to the current position of the vehicle, and a backward search may be performed from a current destination of the vehicle (i.e. a pickup location, drop off location, service location, etc.) to identify the costs of the different pull over spots relative to the current destination [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Herbach further discloses that Costs may be assessed, for instance using typical routing cost analyses such as the time and/or driving distance to reach a location, the different types of maneuvers, etc. [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Herbach further discloses that The computing devices may then identify the location that minimizes a weighted sum of the costs of the two searches and set that as the pull over location for the vehicle [See at least Herbach, 0088]).
Regarding claim 15, Herbach discloses The computing system of claim 14, comprising selecting (Herbach further discloses that The computing devices may then identify the location that minimizes a weighted sum of the costs of the two searches and set that as the pull over location for the vehicle [See at least Herbach, 0088]. This may be regarded as selection of a cost function), based at least in part on the severity level for the one or more satisfied vehicle stoppage conditions (Herbach discloses that a forward graph search may be performed from the current position of the vehicle to identify the costs of different pull over spots relative to the current position of the vehicle, and a backward search may be performed from a current destination of the vehicle (i.e. a pickup location, drop off location, service location, etc.) to identify the costs of the different pull over spots relative to the current destination [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Herbach further discloses that Costs may be assessed, for instance using typical routing cost analyses such as the time and/or driving distance to reach a location, the different types of maneuvers, etc. [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Each of these factors may be regarded as constraints, and their consideration is only triggered because of the severity of the issue, which determines what their values will be), the cost function (Herbach further discloses that The computing devices may then identify the location that minimizes a weighted sum of the costs of the two searches and set that as the pull over location for the vehicle [See at least Herbach, 0088]. This may be regarded as selection of a cost function).
Regarding claim 16, Herbach discloses The computing system of claim 14, wherein the cost function is associated with a stopping distance for the autonomous vehicle (Herbach further discloses that Costs may be assessed, for instance using typical routing cost analyses such as the time and/or driving distance to reach a location [See at least Herbach, 0088]).
Regarding claim 18, Herbach discloses The computing system of claim 13, wherein the one or more trajectories navigate the autonomous vehicle to a nearest safe stop location (Herbach discloses that a forward graph search may be performed from the current position of the vehicle to identify the costs of different pull over spots relative to the current position of the vehicle [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Herbach further discloses that Costs may be assessed, for instance using typical routing cost analyses such as the time and/or driving distance to reach a location [See at least Herbach, 0088]) that is outside a flow of traffic (See at least Fig. 11 in Herbach: Herbach discloses that pull over spots 1130, 1132, 1134, 1136, 1138, 1140 merely correspond to a shoulder area where vehicle 120 could lawfully park for some period of time [See at least Herbach, 0081]).
Regarding claim 19, Herbach discloses The computing system of claim 13, wherein the autonomous vehicle is a truck (Herbach discloses that the vehicle may be any type of vehicle including, but not limited to, cars, trucks [See at least Herbach, 0027]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbach et al. (US 20190155283 A1) in view of Choi (US 20120078509 A1), hereinafter referred to as Herbach and Choi, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Herbach discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
However, Herbach does not explicitly teach the method wherein the one or more vehicle stoppage conditions comprise a punctured tire of the autonomous vehicle.
However, Choi does teach a method wherein the one or more vehicle stoppage conditions comprise a punctured tire of the autonomous vehicle (See at least Fig. 18 in Choi: Choi teaches that In step 1606, which follows step 1604, the control system 201 determines if the vehicle can be driven safely [See at least Choi, 0125]. Choi further teaches that For example, in situations where the vehicle problem is a punctured tire, the vehicle should be immediately pulled over rather than driven any substantial distance [See at least Choi, 0125]). Both Herbach and Choi teach methods for determining safe locations for vehicles to pull over when a certain vehicle condition is detected. However, only Choi explicitly teaches where the vehicle condition may include a punctured tire.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pull over location identification method of Herbach to also be triggered in situations where the vehicle has a punctured tire, as in Choi. Doing so improves safety.
Regarding claim 3, Herbach in view of Choi teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the severity level is the first severity level whereby the autonomous vehicle is to stop in the current lane of travel (See at least Fig. 13 in Herbach: Herbach discloses For the highest severity level, the computing devices 110 may simply stop the vehicle immediately in lane 1114 [See at least Herbach, 0087]. Note that, as this claim is currently written, there is actually no explicit nexus with the “punctured tire” of claim 2).
Regarding claim 9, Herbach discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
However, Herbach does not explicitly teach the method wherein the hardware component is a tire of the autonomous vehicle.
However, Choi does teach a method wherein the hardware component is a tire of the autonomous vehicle (See at least Fig. 18 in Choi: Choi teaches that In step 1606, which follows step 1604, the control system 201 determines if the vehicle can be driven safely [See at least Choi, 0125]. Choi further teaches that For example, in situations where the vehicle problem is a punctured tire, the vehicle should be immediately pulled over rather than driven any substantial distance [See at least Choi, 0125]). Both Herbach and Choi teach methods for determining safe locations for vehicles to pull over when a certain vehicle condition is detected. However, only Choi explicitly teaches where the vehicle condition may include a punctured tire.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pull over location identification method of Herbach to also be triggered in situations where the vehicle has a punctured tire, as in Choi. Doing so improves safety.
Examiner’s Suggestion to Help Applicant Overcome the Prior Art of Record
Applicant can use the following amendments to claims 1 and 12, modeled off of the language of paragraph [0048], to overcome the prior art of record:
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method of autonomous vehicle operation, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving state data corresponding to a state of an autonomous vehicle;
determining that one or more vehicle stoppage conditions are satisfied based at least in part on the state data, wherein the one or more vehicle stoppage conditions indicate that the autonomous vehicle is to stop traveling;
determining, based at least in part on the state data, a severity level for the one or more satisfied vehicle stoppage conditions, wherein the severity level is:
a first severity level whereby the autonomous vehicle is to stop in a current lane of travel, or
a second severity level whereby the autonomous vehicle is to travel to a stopping location outside the current lane of travel;
introducing, based at least in part on the severity level, a first cost function into a motion planning process of a motion planning system of the autonomous vehicle;
introducing a second cost function into the motion planning process to cause the motion planning process to satisfy a constraint;
generating, by the motion planning system and based at least in part on the cost function, one or more trajectories for the autonomous vehicle; and
controlling autonomous driving of the autonomous vehicle in accordance with the one or more trajectories.
12. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method of claim 11, comprising:
determining the severity level based on the state of the hardware component;
determining [[a]] the constraint based at least in part on the severity level; and
selecting the second cost function based at least in part on the constraint.
The above amendments would result in claim 1 overcoming the prior art of record. Similar amendments could be made to claims 13 and 20 to allow them to overcome the prior art of record too. However, further search and consideration will be required before any determinations of allowability can be made.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record is Herbach et al. (US 20190155283 A1) in view of Amento et al. (US 20150170310 A1) in further view of Liu et al. (US 20200269873 A1), hereinafter referred to as Herbach, Amento, and Liu, respectively. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 17, Herbach discloses The computing system of claim 14.
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the system wherein the cost function provides an increased cost associated with the autonomous vehicle leaving the current lane of travel.
Herbach comes close to teaching this limitation, since Herbach teaches a method for calculating which maneuver a vehicle should choose responsive to a fault condition, where sometimes lane changes are appropriate and other times they are not (Herbach teaches that for lower severity levels, making multiple lane changes or waiting for a highway exit may be appropriate, however as the severity level increases, these may no longer be appropriate and may therefore be avoided or restricted [See at least Herbach, 0075]). Moreover, Herbach does teach the use of cost functions in calculating maneuvers (Herbach discloses that a forward graph search may be performed from the current position of the vehicle to identify the costs of different pull over spots relative to the current position of the vehicle, and a backward search may be performed from a current destination of the vehicle (i.e. a pickup location, drop off location, service location, etc.) to identify the costs of the different pull over spots relative to the current destination [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Herbach further discloses that Costs may be assessed, for instance using typical routing cost analyses such as the time and/or driving distance to reach a location, the different types of maneuvers, etc. [See at least Herbach, 0088]. Herbach further discloses that The computing devices may then identify the location that minimizes a weighted sum of the costs of the two searches and set that as the pull over location for the vehicle [See at least Herbach, 0088]).
However, Herbach is silent as to increasing a cost based on the vehicle having to leave its current lane of travel. Therefore, it is altogether unclear from Herbach whether the particular factor of staying in the lane or leaving the lane corresponds to an increased, decreased, or identical cost, all else being equal, which means that Herbach cannot read on the claimed invention.
Amento also comes close to reading on the claimed invention, since Amento teaches a vehicle wherein, if the traffic does not decrease sufficiently, the system may further raise the cost to encourage more vehicles to leave the current lane (See at least [Amento, 0028]). However, this is an increase in cost when the vehicle stays in the current lane, rather than when the vehicle leaves the current lane, which means that it is the opposite of the claimed invention.
Liu also comes somewhat close to reading on the claimed invention, since Liu teaches a vehicle wherein multiple possible trajectories for a vehicle to change lanes are calculated and the one that minimizes a cost function is selected as the vehicle’s trajectory of choice (Liu teaches that multiple speed trajectories to be selected within a preset time range may be generated for the autonomous vehicle before the lane change; a cost function value of each of the speed trajectories to be selected is calculated, and a trajectory of speed to be selected with a minimum cost function value is selected as a planning speed trajectory [See at least Liu, 0065]). However, this reference presupposes that the vehicle will change lanes, and therefore all of the costs calculated are for lane changes; there is no cost calculated for staying in the current lane. Accordingly, Liu is not in the field of endeavor of contemplating a cost for the vehicle changing lanes relative to the vehicle staying in the current lane based on severity of stopping conditions at all because the latter cost is never even calculated. Moreover, Liu does not relate to the severity of a stopping condition at all, even though this is something that is required by the independent claim. Liu therefore is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
None of the other prior art of record resolve these deficiencies in Herbach, Amento, and Liu.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 17 contains allowable subject matter.
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 NAEEM T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571) 272-1516. 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.
/NAEEM TASLIM ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights