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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 19/124,639, filed April 25, 2025. Claims 1-11 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for PCT Patent Application No. PCT/CN2022/127915, filed October 27, 2022, is acknowledged and accepted.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Chinese Patent Application No. CN202211314900.4, filed on October 26, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 25, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFT 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84, as indicated below.
The drawings are objected to because the lines lack clarity and many of the words are illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “the autonomous driving domain” and then recites “the vehicle’s autonomous driving domain controller.” Applicant is required to select one or the other for referencing “a chassis domain controller for automated driving” of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 11, recites “extreme vehicle state signals,” “extreme dynamic control state,” and “extreme condition trajectory signals.” At the onset, the term “extreme” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “extreme” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 11, recites “determine normal operation of the autonomous driving domain based on received verification signals and transmits autonomous driving degradation signals” and “normal operating condition local trajectory signals.” The term “normal” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 11, recites “degradation signals” and claim 4 recites “degraded signals.” The terms “degradation” and “degraded” are a relative terms which renders the claims indefinite. The terms “degradation” and “degraded” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 11, “local trajectory signals.” The term “local” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “local” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Furthermore, there is no indications, within the written description, what comprises a “local trajectory signal.” For the purpose of examination, “local trajectory signals” will be interpreted as a current trajectory of the vehicle.
Claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 11, the limitations of “emergency stop trajectory signals” and "extreme condition trajectory signals." However, nowhere in the written description does it indicate what comprises “emergency stop trajectory signals” and “extreme condition trajectory signals.”
Claim 7 recites “high-level.” The term “high-level” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-level” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 9 recites “precise.” The term “precise” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “precise” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The Office notes, with respect to the above relative terms, that dependent claims including these terms are rejected for the same reason.
The Office further notes that the foregoing rejections of independent claim 1 extend to its dependents.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0201323, to Park.
As per claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 11, Park discloses a chassis domain controller for automated driving (e.g. see Fig. 1 and Abstract, wherein main and redundant domain units (DCUs) 130 and 150 for an autonomous vehicle are provided).
With respect to comprising: state estimation and prediction module configured to receive and process multiple sensor signals to calculate extreme vehicle state signals, in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), the Office interprets this passage as a module receiving vehicle state signals generated based upon multiple sensor signals. Based upon this interpretation, Park discloses a sensor 100 including camera 112, radar 114 and LiDAR 116, which generates data received by the DCUs, wherein the data is used by a lane marking detection module 150d and object detection module 150e (i.e. state estimation and prediction modules) for autonomous driving (e.g. see Fig. 2 and paras 0033 and 0056).
With respect to safety state machine module configured to determine normal operation of the autonomous driving domain based on received verification signals and transmits autonomous driving degradation signals, in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), the Office interprets this passage as a module that determines whether operation of an autonomous controller is normal based upon a signals indicating the same, and further transmits degradations state signals based thereupon. Based upon this interpretation, Park discloses the main DCU performing a self-diagnosis to detect a fault therein (i.e. determine normal operation based upon a self-diagnosis signal) and transmits a degradation signal to, at a minimum, a redundancy DCU. Additionally, Park discloses also determining faults in an actuator and transmitting a signal based thereupon (e.g. see paras 0017, 0069 and 0081-0082).
With respect to wherein, safety state machine module determines whether the vehicle enters extreme dynamic control state based on received extreme vehicle state signals, and if so, transmits the extreme vehicle state signals to the autonomous driving domain controller, in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), the Office interprets this passage as a module determine whether the vehicle enters a state where dynamic control is necessary based upon received signal and transmits such indication to a controller of the autonomous vehicle. Based upon this interpretation, Park discloses that once a fault is detected in the main DCU, a signal is transmitted to cause the redundancy DCU to control operation of the autonomous vehicle (e.g. see at least para 0017).
With respect to autonomous driving redundancy module configured to activate based on received autonomous driving degradation signals to generate emergency stop trajectory signals, in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), the Office interprets this passage as a module configured to generate an emergency stop signal based upon the degradation state indicating whether the autonomous controller is operating normally. Based upon this interpretation, Park discloses that the redundancy DCU receives indication of main DCU fault and executes a safety control function to stop the vehicle (e.g. see at least para 0017).
With respect to trajectory tracking control module configured to receive normal operating condition local trajectory signals, emergency stop trajectory signals, and extreme condition trajectory signals, and combine them with received extreme vehicle state signals from the state estimation and prediction module to generate longitudinal and lateral motion control signals, in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), the Office interprets this passage as a module receiving and combining a current trajectory signal of the vehicle, an emergency stop signal based upon vehicle trajectory, and vehicle state signal to generate longitude and lateral control signals. Based upon this interpretation, Park discloses the redundancy DCU receives, via fault tolerant management module 150c, current trajectory data from the camera, radar, LiDAR, etc., signal indicating main DCU fault, and planned trajectory from the minimal risk maneuver module 150a, to generate lateral and longitudinal control signals (e.g. see Fig. 2 and paras 0142-0159).
With respect to chassis dynamics control module configured to receive longitudinal and lateral motion control signals, combine them with received extreme vehicle state signals, generate control signals for each vehicle actuator, and transmit them to corresponding actuator controllers, in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), the Office interprets this passage as a module configured to transmit the control signals to vehicle actuator controllers, in view of current sensor data. Based upon this interpretation, Park discloses receiving, directly or indirectly vehicle state signals, and signals from the fault tolerant management module to generated control signals to vehicle actuator to control the autonomous vehicle to stop (e.g. see Figs. 2-5 and paras 0142-0159).
As per claim 3, Park discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the safety state machine module performs safety state evaluation on received extreme vehicle state signals, determines normal operation of the autonomous driving domain based on received verification signals from the vehicle's autonomous driving domain controller, and transmits autonomous driving degradation signals to the autonomous driving redundancy module (e.g. see rejection of claim 1; the Office further notes that the fault determination would comprise a safety evaluation).
As per claim 4, Park discloses the features of claim 3, and further discloses wherein the autonomous driving redundancy module contains pre-configured redundant perception and decision-making algorithms, wherein the pre-configured redundant perception and decision-making algorithms comprises fusion perception algorithms based on degraded sensor signals, and generation of emergency stop trajectories or minimum-risk strategy trajectories based on redundant scenario maps (e.g. see Fig. 2, paras 0079-0081 and rejection of claim 1).
As per claim 5, Park discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the autonomous driving redundancy module activates based on autonomous driving degradation signals, when the degradation signal indicates normal operation of the autonomous driving domain controller, the autonomous driving redundancy module remains inactive; when the degradation signal indicates failure of the autonomous driving domain controller, the redundancy module activates to generate emergency stop trajectory signals (e.g. see rejection of claim 1; the Office further notes that the redundancy DCU is only utilized during a fault condition).
As per claim 6, Park discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the trajectory tracking control module receives trajectory signals from both the autonomous driving domain controller and the autonomous driving redundancy module, the trajectory tracking control module prioritizes trajectory signals from the redundancy module if emergency stop trajectory signals are received, and generates longitudinal and lateral motion control signals based on selected trajectories combined with position, attitude, and speed feedback from the state estimation and prediction module, and then transmit them to the chassis dynamics control module (e.g. see para 0014, wherein the main DCU and redundancy DCU both function independently meaning that both include or utilize trajectory tracking control module for the purpose of controlling movement of the autonomous vehicle; the Office further notes that the redundancy DCU would be given priority during a fault condition to cause stopping of the vehicle).
As per claim 7, Park discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses a vehicle, comprising: a sensor suite for supporting high-level autonomous driving mounted on the vehicle , the chassis domain controller for automated driving as described in Claim 1 (e.g. see rejection of claim 1), an autonomous driving domain controller, a drive system, a braking system, a steering system, and a suspension system (e.g. the Office notes that these are all components of an autonomous vehicle); the sensor suite for the high-level autonomous driving transmits multiple sensor signals to both the chassis domain controller and the autonomous driving domain controller (e.g. see rejection of claim 1); information interaction occurs between the autonomous driving domain controller and the chassis domain controller via communication links (e.g. see rejection of claim 1 and Figs. 1 and 2); the autonomous driving domain controller transmits output control signals to the drive system, braking system, steering system, and suspension system; the chassis domain controller transmits control signals for the drive system, braking system, steering system, and suspension system to their respective actuator controllers to enable vehicle operation (e.g. the Office notes that these are all common control aspects of an autonomous vehicle, which would be utilized to stop the vehicle).
As per claim 8, Park discloses the features of claim 7, and further discloses a control method based on the vehicle described in claim 7 (e.g. see rejection of claim 7), the autonomous driving domain controller calculates driving behaviors and generates trajectory signals through planning and decision-making algorithms, transmitting them along with verification signals to the chassis domain controller for state evaluation and trajectory tracking control (e.g. see rejections of claim 1 and paras 0079-0081).
As per claim 9, Park discloses the features of claim 8, and further discloses during trajectory signal generation, the autonomous driving domain controller determines whether the vehicle enters extreme dynamic control state or requires emergency stopping (e.g. see rejection of claim 1), and whether the vehicle possesses [precise] control capability under extreme conditions, based on extreme vehicle state signals from the chassis domain controller (e.g. see rejection of claim 1); when emergency stopping is required, the autonomous driving domain controller transmits emergency stop trajectory signals to the chassis domain controller (e.g. see rejection of claim 1); when the vehicle is not in extreme dynamic control state and does not require emergency stopping, the autonomous driving domain controller transmits local trajectory signals to the chassis domain controller (e.g. see rejection of claim 5); when the vehicle enters extreme dynamic control state and possesses [precise] control capability under extreme conditions, the autonomous driving domain controller transmits extreme condition trajectory signals to the chassis domain controller (e.g. see rejection of claim 1); when the vehicle enters extreme dynamic control state but lacks [precise] control capability under extreme conditions, the autonomous driving domain controller transmits local trajectory signals to the chassis domain controller (e.g. see rejection of claim 1). With respect to the term “precise,” as indicated in the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), “precise” comprises a relative term which does not give weight to the claim.
As per claim 10, Park discloses the features of claim 8, and further discloses wherein when the autonomous driving domain controller identifies chassis domain controller failure based on received verification signals, the autonomous driving domain controller directly generates control commands for each vehicle actuator based on received sensor signals and transmits them to corresponding actuator controllers via independent communication links for direct control (e.g. see rejection of claim 1; the Office further notes that the commands would be independent for each component); when the chassis domain controller identifies autonomous driving domain controller failure based on received verification signals, the state estimation and prediction module of the chassis domain controller performs fusion calculations on received sensor signals to estimate and predict vehicle position, attitude, and speed information, and further calculates, in combination with vehicle dynamics models to derive extreme state signals (e.g. see rejection of claim 1 and Fig. 2; the Office further notes that these are all common control aspects of an autonomous vehicle, which would be utilized to stop the vehicle).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN113029137, to Tsinghua University (hereinafter Tsinghua).
As per claim 2, Park discloses the features of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the state estimation and prediction module employs Kalman filtering, extended Kalman filtering, or Monte Carlo methods to fuse and calculate vehicle position, attitude, and speed signals, further deriving extreme vehicle state signals. However, Tsinghua using a Kalman filter method for calculating attitude, speed and position of a vehicle (e.g. see. P. 27, lines 9-15). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Park to utilize Kalman filtering for the purpose of eliminating unwanted data and improving resulting measurements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. 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.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B
Prosecution Insights