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 statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/05/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 12/17/2025.
Claims 21-40 have been presented for examination.
Claims 21-40 are currently rejected.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yousuf et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0370540) in view of Bramley et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0223780).
Regarding claim 21, Yousuf discloses a system comprising:
a plurality of sensors on a vehicle; (Yousuf ¶ 56 discloses “controller 100 provides autonomous self-driving capabilities in response to signals continuously provided in real time from an array of sensors.” Also see Fig. 1.)
an automated driving system (Yousuf in at least ¶ 24 discloses functioning the vehicle in an “autonomous mode”) comprising: a driving processor of the vehicle (Yousuf ¶ 26 discloses that “Each of the three main controller processors independently obtains sensor information, independently processes and independently actuates peripheral devices used to control the vehicle”), wherein:
the driving processor is to execute code (Yousuf ¶ 109) to: receive sensor data from the plurality of sensors; (Yousuf in at least ¶ 186 discloses that the processor 202 performs sensor data processing (612))
determine automated driving actions to be performed based on the sensor data; and (Yousuf in at least ¶ 189 discloses that “when vehicle cameras indicate that a vehicle ahead is slowing down so that braking needs to be applied,” the processor may “independently processing the incoming sensor data may each determine that braking should be applied”)
trigger actuators on the vehicle to perform the automated driving actions; and (Yousuf in at least ¶ 27 discloses that each processor, including processor 202, independently processes sensor data and independently provides actuation, which includes the brakes or throttle, see ¶ 30, and wherein the processors provide autonomous operation, see at least ¶ 27)
a redundant processor associated with the driving processor (Yousuf ¶ 23 discloses that the processors, including processor 206, have “built-in redundancy” such that the redundancy is provided through the independence of redundant computation to provide autonomous operation, also see ¶ 27, wherein processor 206 is associated with processor 202, see Fig. 7A.) wherein the redundant processor is to provide redundancy for at least a portion of the automated driving actions; and (Yousuf ¶ 27 discloses that “All relevant inputs gathered by sensors are fed into each of the three processors. Each of the three processors independently processes the sensor data, and independently provides actuation to peripheral devices.”)
a safety control unit comprising a processor separate from the driving processor and the redundant processor, wherein the safety control unit is to: monitor performance of the driving processor to detect a fault by the driving processor; and (Yousuf ¶ 119 discloses that the “The third processor 206 may include a safety management unit (SMU) 318, and bus interfaces 320, 322” such that “the redundancy allows error detection and error correction.” Also see Fig. 7A depicting that processors 202, 204, and 206 are separate and independent.)
Yousuf does not expressly disclose:
trigger an action to modify performance of the automated driving actions based on the fault.
However, Bramley discloses:
trigger an action to modify performance of the automated driving actions based on the fault. (Bramley ¶ 27 discloses “where a fault is detected, corrective measures may be taken, such as to hand over the control of the vehicle to the driver, perform a safety maneuver, and/or to offload or transfer processing of the DNN to other components”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the fault detection and vehicle control of Yousuf with triggering an action to modify performance of the automated driving actions based on the fault, as disclosed by Bramley, with reasonable expectation of success, to create a robust fault detection system with increased fault coverage (Bramley ¶ 28) and to accurately, efficiently, and timely identifying DNN faults may allow a system to identify when operations of the system that rely on predictions of the DNN are impaired (Bramley ¶ 2), because such corrective measures provide for effective and safe driving (Bramley ¶ 2), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 22, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the system of Claim 21, wherein:
the action comprises passing control of the automated driving actions to the redundant processor. (Yousuf in at least ¶ 176 discloses that in case unrecoverable fault in processor 206, processor 202 or processor 204 will be the backup for control outputs, also see ¶ 183 “processor 206 takes over the primary control output”)
Regarding claim 23, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the system of Claim 22, wherein:
the redundant processor comprises a backup processor for the driving processor. (Yousuf ¶ 183 discloses that “If processor 206 experiences a category 2 fault, control is switched to processors 202, 204 (one of these acts as a backup for the other; the operation remains safe.” Also see ¶ 176.)
Regarding claim 24, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the system of Claim 21, wherein:
a safety integrity rating for the safety control unit is higher than a safety integrity rating for at least one of the driving processor or the redundant processor. (Yousuf ¶ 108 discloses “the redundant tasks/functions performed by processors 202, 204 provide compliance with a lower safety standard (ASIL B/D) whereas the processes performed by the third processor 206 provide compliance with a higher safety standard (ASIL D),” wherein one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an ASIL D has a higher safety integrity rating than ASIL B. See “Understanding How ISO 26262 ASIL is Determined for Automotive Applications”)
Regarding claim 25, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the system of Claim 24, wherein:
the safety integrity rating for the safety control unit and the safety integrity rating for at least one of the driving processor or the redundant processor comprise automotive safety integrity level (ASIL) ratings. (Yousuf in at least ¶ 108 discloses that the processors provide compliance with ASIL levels B and D)
Regarding claim 26, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the system of Claim 24, wherein:
the safety integrity rating for the safety control unit is higher than the safety integrity rating for the driving processor or the redundant processor. (Yousuf ¶ 108 discloses “the redundant tasks/functions performed by processors 202, 204 provide compliance with a lower safety standard (ASIL B/D) whereas the processes performed by the third processor 206 provide compliance with a higher safety standard (ASIL D),” wherein one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an ASIL D has a higher safety integrity rating than ASIL B. See “Understanding How ISO 26262 ASIL is Determined for Automotive Applications”)
Regarding claim 27, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the system of Claim 24, wherein:
the safety integrity rating for the safety control unit is higher than the safety integrity rating for the redundant processor. (Yousuf in at least ¶ 108)
Regarding claim 28, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the system of Claim 21, wherein:
the automated driving actions comprise autonomous control of steering, braking, and acceleration of the vehicle. (Yousuf ¶ 57 discloses that “Controller 100 provides autonomous driving outputs in response to an array of sensor inputs” including operating one or more braking actuators 61, a steering mechanism 58 via a steering actuator 62, and a propulsion unit 56 which receives an accelerator/throttle actuation signal 64)
Regarding claim 29, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the system of Claim 28, wherein:
the automated driving actions further comprise path planning and autonomously performing the steering, braking, and acceleration of the vehicle based on the path planning. (Yousuf in at least ¶ 111 discloses vehicle path calculation 144 including a projected vehicle path calculation 158 and an actual vehicle path calculation 160. Also see ¶¶ 169 and 171 disclosing path planning and actuation command in processor 202 and processor 204, wherein the actuation commands include “arbitration in respective actuation system (e.g., braking, steering, propulsion)”)
Regarding claim 30, Yousuf discloses an apparatus comprising:
a safety control unit coupled to a driving processor of a vehicle and a redundant processor associated with the driving processor, (Yousuf ¶ 26 discloses that “Each of the three main controller processors independently obtains sensor information, independently processes and independently actuates peripheral devices used to control the vehicle,” which includes a driving processor )
wherein the driving processor is to cause a vehicle to perform automated driving actions, and the safety control unit comprises a processor separate from the driving processor and the redundant processor (Yousuf in at least ¶ 27 discloses that each processor, including processor 202, independently processes sensor data and independently provides actuation, which includes the brakes or throttle, see ¶ 30, and wherein the processors provide autonomous operation, see at least ¶ 27), and the safety control unit is to: monitor performance of the driving processor to detect a fault by the driving processor; and (Yousuf ¶ 119 discloses that the “The third processor 206 may include a safety management unit (SMU) 318, and bus interfaces 320, 322” such that “the redundancy allows error detection and error correction.” Also see Fig. 7A depicting that processors 202, 204, and 206 are separate and independent.)
Yousuf does not expressly disclose:
trigger an action to modify performance of the automated driving actions based on the fault using the redundant processor.
However, Bramley discloses:
trigger an action to modify performance of the automated driving actions based on the fault using the redundant processor. (Bramley ¶ 27 discloses “where a fault is detected, corrective measures may be taken, such as to hand over the control of the vehicle to the driver, perform a safety maneuver, and/or to offload or transfer processing of the DNN to other components”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the automated driving actions of Yousuf with triggering an action to modify the performance of the automated driving actions based on a fault using a redundant processor, as disclosed by Bramley, with reasonable expectation of success, to allow the autonomous and/or ADAS systems to make critical decisions in real-time or near real time—such as to suggest or implement corrective measures for effective and safe driving (Bramley ¶ 2), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 31, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 22 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 32, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 24 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 33, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 25 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 34, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 22 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 34, Yousuf discloses a system comprising:
a vehicle (Yousuf in at least Fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of sensors; (Yousuf ¶ 56 discloses “controller 100 provides autonomous self-driving capabilities in response to signals continuously provided in real time from an array of sensors.” Also see Fig. 1.)
a plurality of actuators to control operation of the vehicle; and (Yousuf in at least ¶ 57 discloses braking actuators 61 and steering actuator 62)
an automated driving system comprising: a driving processor of the vehicle, wherein the driving processor is to execute code (Yousuf in at least ¶ 109) to: receive sensor data from the plurality of sensors; (Yousuf in at least ¶ 186 discloses that the processor 202 performs sensor data processing (612))
determine automated driving actions to be performed based on the sensor data; and (Yousuf in at least ¶ 189 discloses that “when vehicle cameras indicate that a vehicle ahead is slowing down so that braking needs to be applied,” the processor may “independently processing the incoming sensor data may each determine that braking should be applied”)
trigger at least a subset of the plurality of actuators to perform the automated driving actions; and (Yousuf in at least ¶ 27 discloses that each processor, including processor 202, independently processes sensor data and independently provides actuation, which includes the brakes or throttle, see ¶ 30, and wherein the processors provide autonomous operation, see at least ¶ 27. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the brakes or throttle are each subsets of actuators; therefore, actuating the brakes or throttle triggers at least a subset of a plurality of actuators.)
a redundant processor associated with the driving processor, wherein the redundant processor is to provide redundancy for at least a portion of the automated driving actions; and (Yousuf ¶ 23 discloses that the processors, including processor 206, have “built-in redundancy” such that the redundancy is provided through the independence of redundant computation to provide autonomous operation, also see ¶ 27, wherein processor 206 is associated with processor 202, see Fig. 7A.)
a safety control unit comprising a processor separate from the driving processor and the redundant processor, wherein the safety control unit is to: monitor performance of the driving processor to detect a fault by the driving processor; and (Yousuf ¶ 119 discloses that the “The third processor 206 may include a safety management unit (SMU) 318, and bus interfaces 320, 322” such that “the redundancy allows error detection and error correction.” Also see Fig. 7A depicting that processors 202, 204, and 206 are separate and independent.)
Yousuf does not expressly disclose:
trigger an action to modify performance of the automated driving actions based on the fault.
However, Bramley discloses:
trigger an action to modify performance of the automated driving actions based on the fault. (Bramley ¶ 27 discloses “where a fault is detected, corrective measures may be taken, such as to hand over the control of the vehicle to the driver, perform a safety maneuver, and/or to offload or transfer processing of the DNN to other components”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the fault detection and vehicle control of Yousuf with triggering an action to modify performance of the automated driving actions based on the fault, as disclosed by Bramley, with reasonable expectation of success, to create a robust fault detection system with increased fault coverage (Bramley ¶ 28) and to accurately, efficiently, and timely identifying DNN faults may allow a system to identify when operations of the system that rely on predictions of the DNN are impaired (Bramley ¶ 2), because such corrective measures provide for effective and safe driving (Bramley ¶ 2), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 35, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the system of Claim 34, wherein:
the vehicle comprises an automobile. (Yousuf in at least Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 35, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the system of Claim 34, wherein:
the vehicle comprises a drone. (Bramley in at least ¶ 22 discloses that the vehicle 1000 includes drones. Also see ¶ 78.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the vehicle of Yousuf to include that the vehicle comprises a drone, as disclosed by Bramley, with reasonable expectation of success, to allow for testing more scenarios (Bramley ¶ 30), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 37, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 22 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 38, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 24 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 39, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the system of Claim 34, wherein:
the plurality of sensors comprise a plurality of camera sensors, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, and a radar sensor. (Yousuf in at least ¶ 32 discloses that the processors make decisions based on receiving “radar, lidar and camera information in order to detect objects”)
Regarding claim 40, Yousuf in combination with Bramley discloses the system of Claim 34, further comprising:
an in-vehicle computing system, wherein the in-vehicle computing system comprises the automated driving system and the safety control unit. (Yousuf ¶ 57 discloses “controller 100 is essentially an onboard supercomputer that operates in real time to process sensor signals and output autonomous operation commands to self-drive vehicle 50,” wherein controller 100 includes processor 202, which is an automated driving system, see at least ¶¶ 28, 108, and 169, and processor 206 which includes Safety Management Unit (SMU) 318)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ditty et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0258251) discloses a system and method for facilitating autonomous driving functionality which maintain automation levels 3, 4, and 5 even when a processor component fails.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM 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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights