DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This action is in response to the filing of the Application on 03/10/2025.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21 – 25, 28 – 32 and 35 - 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Herbach (US 20170057510).
Claim 21, Herbach discloses a method, comprising: causing a vehicle to travel autonomously along a trajectory; receiving an indication that the vehicle has experienced a degradation in performance [see p0015 - p0021 teaching an autonomous vehicle operating on a road or path of travel may be configured to identify regions of the road or path in which the autonomous vehicle can pull over and stop. Further, execution of the instructions may be automated, such as in an event in which the autonomous vehicle detects an emergency scenario (e.g., sensor failure, empty gas tank, etc.) and responsively pulls itself over]
Herbach teaches responsive to the indication, determining a target location along the trajectory of the causing the vehicle to perform the stopping maneuver [see p0017 – p0021 teaching - the autonomous vehicle may use a variety of methods to determine whether the section of the road (e.g., the identified region) is safe or otherwise suitable for pulling over the autonomous vehicle. If the autonomous vehicle determines that the section of the road is not safe or not otherwise suitable for pulling over the autonomous vehicle, the autonomous vehicle may continue driving along its normal path and monitor a different section of the road that is further ahead of the previous section. When the autonomous vehicle executes the instructions to pull over, it may switch from its current trajectory to the adjusted trajectory. The execution of the instructions may be automated, such as in an event in which the autonomous vehicle detects an emergency scenario (e.g., sensor failure, empty gas tank, etc.) and responsively pulls itself over].
Claim 28 is similarly rejected as Claim 21, see above, additionally Herbach discloses the system may comprise at least one processor. The system also may comprise a memory having stored thereon instructions that, upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform functions [see p0023].
Claim 35 is similarly rejected as Claim 21, see above, additionally the system may comprise at least one processor. The system also may comprise a memory having stored thereon instructions that, upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform functions [see p0023].
Claim 22, Herbach discloses the method of claim 21, wherein determining the target location comprises: determining one or more characteristics associated with the target location or with performing the stopping maneuver at the target location; and determining that the one or more characteristics satisfy one or more conditions indicative of the target location being safe [see Herbach, p0078 - teaches target location is selected from a target locations by evaluating whether a quality value of the target location satisfies a minimum quality threshold, the minimum quality threshold determined based at least in part on one or more features of the request for the vehicle to engage in the speed-reducing safety maneuver; In some embodiments, the computing device may gather a list of regions and then analyze the regions to determine a region that is most safe or otherwise preferable for pulling over the autonomous vehicle. For example, the computing device may pull over the autonomous vehicle in the closest safe region rather than a farther region, depending on the urgency of the pullover. Other examples are also possible, and a variety of factors may determine which region out of multiple safe regions to pull over in, aside from the urgency of the pullover].
Claim 29 is similarly rejected as Claim 22, see above.
Claim 36 is similarly rejected as Claim 22, see above.
Claim 23, Herbach discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the degradation in performance comprises a fault or failure of at least one of a vehicle sensor or a vehicle component [see p0021 teaching when the autonomous vehicle executes the instructions to pull over, it may switch from its current trajectory to the adjusted trajectory. The execution of the instructions may be automated, such as in an event in which the autonomous vehicle detects an emergency scenario (e.g., sensor failure, empty gas tank, etc.) and responsively pulls itself over].
Claim 30 is similarly rejected as Claim 23, see above.
Claim 37 is similarly rejected as Claim 23, see above.
Claim 24, Herbach discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising: detecting the degradation in the performance of the vehicle [see p0021 - The execution of the instructions may be automated, such as in an event in which the autonomous vehicle detects an emergency scenario (e.g., sensor failure, empty gas tank, etc.) and responsively pulls itself over. In other events, including emergency scenarios, a driver or remote operator of the autonomous vehicle can manually provide a command to execute the instructions to pull over the autonomous vehicle. In still other events, the driver can disengage automated driving and manually pull the autonomous vehicle over as well].
Claim 31 is similarly rejected as Claim 24, see above.
Claim 38 is similarly rejected as Claim 24, see above.
Claim 25, Herbach discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising: determining a degree of urgency for the stopping maneuver based on a severity of the degradation in the performance; and determining the target location based on the degree of urgency [see Herbach Fig 3, p0078, p0120 – p0123, information indicating that the autonomous vehicle is about to run out of gas or information that an important sensor of the autonomous vehicle has failed may be taken into account by the computing device in determining whether to access and execute the instructions to pull over and stop the autonomous vehicle; After detecting an emergency scenario, the computing device may be configured to provide the driver of the autonomous vehicle a window of time during which the driver can take over manual control of the autonomous vehicle to either pull over the autonomous vehicle or continue driving, based on whether the driver deems it necessary to pull over the autonomous vehicle or not; Further, for example, the computing device may pull over the autonomous vehicle in the closest safe region rather than a farther region, depending on the urgency of the pullover. Other examples are also possible, and a variety of factors may determine which region out of multiple safe regions to pull over in, aside from the urgency of the pullover].
The Examiner interprets that the severity or criticality of the degradation of the performance is aligned with the degree of urgency to pull over. That is, the worse the vehicle performance the more critical it is to stop the vehicle.
Claim 32 is similarly rejected as Claim 25, see above.
Claim 39 is similarly rejected as Claim 25, see above.
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 26, 27, 33, 34 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbach (US 20170057510) in view of Ho (US 2017/0090480).
Claim 26, Herbach discloses the method of claim 25, but does not specifically teach wherein the severity of the degradation is based on a sensor or component affected by the degradation.
However, Ho discloses a disabling failure may correspond to a malfunction or degradation of a vehicle component which limits or precludes operation of the vehicle beyond a predetermined threshold of operability [see p0171].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Herbach to include wherein the severity of the degradation is based on a sensor or component affected by the degradation, as suggested and taught by Ho, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a confidence level determined for the autonomous vehicle which is indicative of an ability of the autonomous vehicle to safely progress on a planned or current route to a destination.
Claim 33 is similarly rejected as Claim 26, see above.
Claim 27, Herbach discloses the method of claim 21, but does not specifically teach wherein the target location is determined based on a sensor or component affected by the degradation.
However, Ho discloses the route planning component 1650 operates to calculate multiple failsafe trajectories 1653 at one time, with each failsafe trajectory 1653 providing assurance that the vehicle can reach safety (e.g., location for a safe stop) in response to a particular type of disabling failure or condition. A disabling failure may correspond to a malfunction or degradation of a vehicle component which limits or precludes operation of the vehicle beyond a predetermined threshold of operability[see p0171 and Fig 16].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Herbach to include wherein the target location is determined based on a sensor or component affected by the degradation,
as suggested and taught by Ho, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a confidence level determined for the autonomous vehicle which is indicative of an ability of the autonomous vehicle to safely progress on a planned or current route to a destination.
Claim 34 is similarly rejected as Claim 27, see above.
Claim 40 is similarly rejected as Claim 27, see above.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE LAROSE whose telephone number is (313)446-4856. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Renee LaRose/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights