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
The Office Action is in response to the arguments filed 08/05/2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/23/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by King et al. US 20200148201 A1 (“King”).
Regarding Claim 1. King teaches an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine comprising:
one or more central processing units (CPUs);
one or more graphics processing units (GPUs);
one or more hardware accelerators (The first system may include one or more processors and memory…which may comprise one or more central processing units (CPUs), graphics processing units (GPUs) integrated circuits (e.g., application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), etc.), gate arrays (e.g., field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), etc.), and/or any other device or portion of a device that processes electronic data to transform that electronic data into other electronic data that may be stored in registers and/or memory [Paragraph 118]); and
one or more sensors having one or more sensory fields external to the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (At operation 306, the first system 302 may receive first sensor data. For example, the first system 302 may receive one or more of LIDAR data, RADAR data, image data, depth data (time of flight, structured light, etc.), etc. from a sensor(s) of a vehicle [paragraph 84]. In FIG. 1, the LIDAR data is used to detect an upcoming collision with a person outside the vehicle, meaning that the sensors have one or more sensory fields external to the vehicle), wherein the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine is to:
apply different respective sets of sensor data obtained using the one or more sensors to different respective program instances to generate corresponding outputs associated with controlling the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (Paragraph 84 recites that the system may receive data from one or more of LIDAR data, RADAR data, image data, depth data (time of flight, structured light, etc.), etc. from a sensor(s) of a vehicle [paragraph 84, FIG. 3]. At 312, the system receives second sensor data, and at 314, the system receives the trajectory from the first system [paragraphs 85-89, FIG. 3]);
determine, based at least on a comparison of the outputs, a result corresponding to hardware fault detection (at 316, the system determines a probability that the vehicle will collide with an object and at 318, checks whether the probability meets or exceeds a probability threshold. If no, the system determines an error has occurred with the first system at 322 [paragraph 90]); and
perform one or more operations based at least on the result corresponding to hardware fault detection (In FIG. 3, 320 and 324 both refer to various vehicle maneuvering or proceeding along a trajectory based on whether or not an error was detected at 322 [paragraph 93]).
Regarding Claim 3. King teaches the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine of claim 1.
King also teaches:
wherein a first set of the different respective sets of the sensor data comprises a subset of a second set of the different respective sets of the sensor data (receive first sensor data from a first subset of the one or more sensors; and determine, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a trajectory for controlling an autonomous vehicle; and a second system comprising one or more second processors and one or more second memories comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more second processors, cause the one or more second processors to: receive the trajectory from the first system; receive second sensor data from a second subset of the one or more sensors [paragraph 128]).
Regarding Claim 5. King teaches the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine of claim 1.
King also teaches:
wherein the different respective sets of the sensor data comprise respective portions of the sensor data obtained at different times and processed by the different respective program instances during common time periods (This is the entire purpose of the disclosure of FIG. 3, wherein the sensors receive two different data sets at different instances and the two are processed together at 316 when determining the probability of a collision [paragraphs 84-89]).
Regarding Claim 6. King teaches the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine of claim 1.
King also teaches:
wherein at least two of the outputs used for the comparison correspond to respective portions of the sensor data obtained at different times (FIG. 3, paragraphs 84-89).
Regarding Claim 7. King teaches the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine of claim 1.
King also teaches:
wherein at least two of the outputs are generated using one or more different respective hardware elements (The LIDAR and RADAR of Paragraph 84).
Regarding Claim 8. King teaches the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine of claim 1.
King also teaches:
wherein the comparison of the outputs is performed using one or more machine learning models (MLMs) to detect one or more hardware faults indicated by the outputs (Paragraph 18 describes how the AI techniques of the system may include machine learning models such as one or more neural networks, and this can be used to implement the primary system [paragraph 19]).
Regarding Claim 10. King teaches a system comprising:
one or more central processing units (CPUs);
one or more graphics processing units (GPUs);
one or more hardware accelerators (The first system may include one or more processors and memory…which may comprise one or more central processing units (CPUs), graphics processing units (GPUs) integrated circuits (e.g., application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), etc.), gate arrays (e.g., field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), etc.), and/or any other device or portion of a device that processes electronic data to transform that electronic data into other electronic data that may be stored in registers and/or memory [Paragraph 118]); and
one or more sensors having one or more sensory fields associated with a machine (At operation 306, the first system 302 may receive first sensor data. For example, the first system 302 may receive one or more of LIDAR data, RADAR data, image data, depth data (time of flight, structured light, etc.), etc. from a sensor(s) of a vehicle [paragraph 84]. In FIG. 1, the LIDAR data is used to detect an upcoming collision with a person outside the vehicle, meaning that the sensors have one or more sensory fields external to the vehicle),
wherein the system causes the machine to perform one or more operations based at least on a result corresponding to hardware fault detection, the result being based at least on: (1) different respective sets of sensor data obtained using the one or more sensors being applied to different respective program instances to generate corresponding outputs associated with controlling the machine, and (2) a comparison of the outputs (Paragraph 84 recites that the system may receive data from one or more of LIDAR data, RADAR data, image data, depth data (time of flight, structured light, etc.), etc. from a sensor(s) of a vehicle [paragraph 84, FIG. 3]. At 316, the system determines a probability that the vehicle will collide with an object and at 318, checks whether the probability meets or exceeds a probability threshold. If no, the system determines an error has occurred with the first system at 322 [paragraph 90]. In FIG. 3, 320 and 324 both refer to various vehicle maneuvering or proceeding along a trajectory based on whether or not an error was detected at 322 [paragraph 93]).
Regarding Claim 12. King teaches the system of claim 10.
King also teaches:
wherein a first set of the different respective sets of the sensor data comprises a subset of a second set of the different respective sets of the sensor data (receive first sensor data from a first subset of the one or more sensors; and determine, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a trajectory for controlling an autonomous vehicle; and a second system comprising one or more second processors and one or more second memories comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more second processors, cause the one or more second processors to: receive the trajectory from the first system; receive second sensor data from a second subset of the one or more sensors [paragraph 128]).
Regarding Claim 15. King teaches the system of claim 10.
King also teaches:
wherein the system is comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (paragraph 15);
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (FIG. 1);
a system for performing one or more simulation operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation (FIG. 1);
a system for performing one or more deep learning operations;
a system implemented using a robot (FIG. 1);
a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content or augmented reality content;
a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
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(s) 2, 4, 11, 14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al. US 20200148201 A1 (“King”) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Curatu US 20180284285 A1 (“Curatu”).
Regarding Claim 2. King teaches the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine of claim 1.
King does not explicitly teach:
wherein the different respective sets of the sensor data comprise portions of the sensor data obtained at successive times and distributed in an alternating manner to the different respective program instances.
However, Curatu teaches:
wherein the different respective sets of the sensor data comprise portions of the sensor data obtained at successive times and distributed in an alternating manner to the different respective program instances (When each lidar sensor includes two light sources that transmit light pulses phased 90 degrees apart, the controller may select a first scan line (line A) from each of the lidar sensors that corresponds to the return light pulses from the first light source. Then, when the next line is scanned, the controller may select a second scan line (line B) from each of the lidar sensors that corresponds to the return light pulses from the second light source. The controller may continue alternating between line A and line B to generate a point cloud that covers a 360-degree horizontal field of regard around the vehicle [paragraph 28]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of King with wherein the different respective sets of the sensor data comprise portions of the sensor data obtained at successive times and distributed in an alternating manner to the different respective program instances as taught by Curatu so as to allow the system to obtain and compare data obtained at different times to confirm that the data collected remains accurate. It should be noted that King teaches collecting data in real-time, it just doesn’t explicitly teach the specifics of the claim language.
Regarding Claim 4. King teaches the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine of claim 1.
King does not explicitly teach:
wherein a first instance of the different respective program instances processes a corresponding set of the different respective sets of the sensor data at a lower rate than a second instance of the different respective program instances.
However, Curatu teaches:
wherein a first instance of the different respective program instances processes a corresponding set of the different respective sets of the sensor data at a lower rate than a second instance of the different respective program instances (Paragraph 53 of Curatu describes how the light source at 110 of FIG. 1 may include a pulsed laser configured to produce pulses of light with a certain duration. This could mean that the light source is a pulsed laser that produces pulses at a pulse repetition frequency of approximately 100 kHz to 5 MHz or a pulse period (e.g., a time between consecutive pulses) of approximately 200 ns to 10 μs. The light source 110 may have a substantially constant or a variable pulse repetition frequency, depending on the implementation. As an example, the light source 110 may be a pulsed laser that produces pulses at a substantially constant pulse repetition frequency of approximately 640 kHz (e.g., 640,000 pulses per second), corresponding to a pulse period of approximately 1.56 μs. This indicates that different respective sets of sensor data at different rates can be included. In some implementations, the light source 110 includes a pulsed laser diode followed by one or more optical-amplification stages [paragraph 56], meaning different light source implementations as previously described, including ones with different frequencies, can be utilized in the same implementation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of King with wherein a first instance of the different respective program instances processes a corresponding set of the different respective sets of the sensor data at a lower rate than a second instance of the different respective program instances as taught by Curatu so as to allow the sensors to still function properly in conditions where atmospheric absorption of the LIDAR system would interfere with one or more frequencies, as disclosed by Curatu in paragraphs 38 and 39.
Regarding Claim 11. King teaches the system of claim 10.
King does not explicitly teach:
wherein the different respective sets of the sensor data comprise portions of the sensor data obtained at successive times and distributed in an alternating manner to the different respective program instances.
However, Curatu teaches:
wherein the different respective sets of the sensor data comprise portions of the sensor data obtained at successive times and distributed in an alternating manner to the different respective program instances (When each lidar sensor includes two light sources that transmit light pulses phased 90 degrees apart, the controller may select a first scan line (line A) from each of the lidar sensors that corresponds to the return light pulses from the first light source. Then, when the next line is scanned, the controller may select a second scan line (line B) from each of the lidar sensors that corresponds to the return light pulses from the second light source. The controller may continue alternating between line A and line B to generate a point cloud that covers a 360-degree horizontal field of regard around the vehicle [paragraph 28]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of King with wherein the different respective sets of the sensor data comprise portions of the sensor data obtained at successive times and distributed in an alternating manner to the different respective program instances as taught by Curatu so as to allow the system to obtain and compare data obtained at different times to confirm that the data collected remains accurate. It should be noted that King teaches collecting data in real-time, it just doesn’t explicitly teach the specifics of the claim language.
Regarding Claim 14. King teaches the system of claim 10.
King does not explicitly teach:
wherein the different respective sets of the sensor data comprise respective portions of the sensor data obtained at different times and processed by the different respective program instances during common time periods.
However, Curatu teaches:
wherein a first instance of the different respective program instances processes a corresponding set of the different respective sets of the sensor data at a lower rate than a second instance of the different respective program instances (Paragraph 53 of Curatu describes how the light source at 110 of FIG. 1 may include a pulsed laser configured to produce pulses of light with a certain duration. This could mean that the light source is a pulsed laser that produces pulses at a pulse repetition frequency of approximately 100 kHz to 5 MHz or a pulse period (e.g., a time between consecutive pulses) of approximately 200 ns to 10 μs. The light source 110 may have a substantially constant or a variable pulse repetition frequency, depending on the implementation. As an example, the light source 110 may be a pulsed laser that produces pulses at a substantially constant pulse repetition frequency of approximately 640 kHz (e.g., 640,000 pulses per second), corresponding to a pulse period of approximately 1.56 μs. This indicates that different respective sets of sensor data at different rates can be included. In some implementations, the light source 110 includes a pulsed laser diode followed by one or more optical-amplification stages [paragraph 56], meaning different light source implementations as previously described, including ones with different frequencies, can be utilized in the same implementation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of King with wherein a first instance of the different respective program instances processes a corresponding set of the different respective sets of the sensor data at a lower rate than a second instance of the different respective program instances as taught by Curatu so as to allow the sensors to still function properly in conditions where atmospheric absorption of the LIDAR system would interfere with one or more frequencies, as disclosed by Curatu in paragraphs 38 and 39.
Regarding Claim 16. King teaches at least one system comprising:
one or more central processing units (CPUs);
one or more graphics processing units (GPUs);
one or more hardware accelerators (The first system may include one or more processors and memory…which may comprise one or more central processing units (CPUs), graphics processing units (GPUs) integrated circuits (e.g., application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), etc.), gate arrays (e.g., field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), etc.), and/or any other device or portion of a device that processes electronic data to transform that electronic data into other electronic data that may be stored in registers and/or memory [Paragraph 118]); and
one or more sensors having one or more sensory fields associated with a machine (At operation 306, the first system 302 may receive first sensor data. For example, the first system 302 may receive one or more of LIDAR data, RADAR data, image data, depth data (time of flight, structured light, etc.), etc. from a sensor(s) of a vehicle [paragraph 84]. In FIG. 1, the LIDAR data is used to detect an upcoming collision with a person outside the vehicle, meaning that the sensors have one or more sensory fields external to the vehicle),
wherein the system causes the machine to perform one or more operations based at least on a result corresponding to hardware fault detection, the result being based at least on: (1) different respective sets of sensor data obtained using the one or more sensors being applied to different respective program instances to generate corresponding outputs associated with controlling the machine, and (2) a comparison of the outputs (Paragraph 84 recites that the system may receive data from one or more of LIDAR data, RADAR data, image data, depth data (time of flight, structured light, etc.), etc. from a sensor(s) of a vehicle [paragraph 84, FIG. 3]. At 316, the system determines a probability that the vehicle will collide with an object and at 318, checks whether the probability meets or exceeds a probability threshold. If no, the system determines an error has occurred with the first system at 322 [paragraph 90]. In FIG. 3, 320 and 324 both refer to various vehicle maneuvering or proceeding along a trajectory based on whether or not an error was detected at 322 [paragraph 93]).
King does not teach:
the system is a system-on-a-chip (SoC).
However, Curatu teaches:
the system is a system-on-a-chip (SoC) (The system described in Curatu could be stored all or in part on a single-chip processor [paragraph 146]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of King with the system is a system-on-a-chip (SoC) as taught by Curatu, in part because it would have been obvious to try, and also for the convenience of confining the system into a single chip.
Regarding Claim 17. King in combination with Curatu teaches the at least one SoC of claim 16.
King does not explicitly teach:
wherein the different respective sets of the sensor data comprise portions of the sensor data obtained at successive times and distributed in an alternating manner to the different respective program instances.
However, Curatu teaches:
wherein the different respective sets of the sensor data comprise portions of the sensor data obtained at successive times and distributed in an alternating manner to the different respective program instances (When each lidar sensor includes two light sources that transmit light pulses phased 90 degrees apart, the controller may select a first scan line (line A) from each of the lidar sensors that corresponds to the return light pulses from the first light source. Then, when the next line is scanned, the controller may select a second scan line (line B) from each of the lidar sensors that corresponds to the return light pulses from the second light source. The controller may continue alternating between line A and line B to generate a point cloud that covers a 360-degree horizontal field of regard around the vehicle [paragraph 28]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of King with wherein the different respective sets of the sensor data comprise portions of the sensor data obtained at successive times and distributed in an alternating manner to the different respective program instances as taught by Curatu so as to allow the system to obtain and compare data obtained at different times to confirm that the data collected remains accurate. It should be noted that King teaches collecting data in real-time, it just doesn’t explicitly teach the specifics of the claim language.
Regarding Claim 18. King in combination with Curatu teaches the at least one SoC of claim 16.
King also teaches:
wherein a first set of the different respective sets of the sensor data comprises a subset of a second set of the different respective sets of the sensor data (receive first sensor data from a first subset of the one or more sensors; and determine, based at least in part on the first sensor data, a trajectory for controlling an autonomous vehicle; and a second system comprising one or more second processors and one or more second memories comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more second processors, cause the one or more second processors to: receive the trajectory from the first system; receive second sensor data from a second subset of the one or more sensors [paragraph 128]).
Regarding Claim 19. King in combination with Curatu teaches the at least one SoC of claim 16.
King also teaches:
King does not explicitly teach:
wherein a first instance of the different respective program instances processes a corresponding set of the different respective sets of the sensor data at a lower rate than a second instance of the different respective program instances.
However, Curatu teaches:
wherein a first instance of the different respective program instances processes a corresponding set of the different respective sets of the sensor data at a lower rate than a second instance of the different respective program instances (Paragraph 53 of Curatu describes how the light source at 110 of FIG. 1 may include a pulsed laser configured to produce pulses of light with a certain duration. This could mean that the light source is a pulsed laser that produces pulses at a pulse repetition frequency of approximately 100 kHz to 5 MHz or a pulse period (e.g., a time between consecutive pulses) of approximately 200 ns to 10 μs. The light source 110 may have a substantially constant or a variable pulse repetition frequency, depending on the implementation. As an example, the light source 110 may be a pulsed laser that produces pulses at a substantially constant pulse repetition frequency of approximately 640 kHz (e.g., 640,000 pulses per second), corresponding to a pulse period of approximately 1.56 μs. This indicates that different respective sets of sensor data at different rates can be included. In some implementations, the light source 110 includes a pulsed laser diode followed by one or more optical-amplification stages [paragraph 56], meaning different light source implementations as previously described, including ones with different frequencies, can be utilized in the same implementation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of King with wherein a first instance of the different respective program instances processes a corresponding set of the different respective sets of the sensor data at a lower rate than a second instance of the different respective program instances as taught by Curatu so as to allow the sensors to still function properly in conditions where atmospheric absorption of the LIDAR system would interfere with one or more frequencies, as disclosed by Curatu in paragraphs 38 and 39.
Regarding Claim 20. King in combination with Curatu teaches the at least one SoC of claim 16.
King also teaches:
wherein the at least one SoC is comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (paragraph 15);
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (FIG. 1);
a system for performing one or more simulation operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation (FIG. 1);
a system for performing one or more deep learning operations;
a system implemented using a robot (FIG. 1);
a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content or augmented reality content;
a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al. US 20200148201 A1 (“King”) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Golov US 20190193747 A1 (“Golov”).
Regarding Claim 9. King teaches the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine of claim 1.
King also teaches:
wherein the one or more operations correspond to one or more of:
initiating execution of the program instances on a backup processing system (upon a failure of the primary system or upon determining a collision is imminent, the secondary system may control the vehicle to decelerate along a trajectory or perform another maneuver [paragraph 8]);
discarding one or more actuator commands corresponding to a detected hardware fault (FIG. 3, 324, wherein the actuator command that is discarded is the maneuver that the vehicle would perform at 320 were it not for the fault detected at 322);
placing the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine into a safe or protected mode (In some examples, the system can, upon determining a failure of the primary system, enter a second mode and operate to control the vehicle to decelerate along a trajectory to bring the vehicle to a safe stop [paragraph 9]);
disabling one or more actuators of the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; or
maintaining one or more outputs of the one or more actuators at a level or setting prior to the detected hardware fault (The controlling of the vehicle to either stop, decelerate, or perform another maneuver [paragraph 9, also paragraph 12] reads on disabling one or more actuators of the autonomous machine as well, although the disclosure of FIG. 3, at 324, as well as further disclosure at paragraph 94, states that the system can control the vehicle to continue on its trajectory with no modification, which reads on maintaining one or more outputs of the one or more actuators prior to the detected hardware fault).
King does not teach:
raising one or more alerts or alarms.
However, Golov teaches:
raising one or more alerts or alarms (when a computing system recognizes a situation where the computing system may not be able to continue operating the vehicle in a safe manner, the computing system alerts the human operator of the vehicle and requests the human operator to take over the control of the vehicle and drive manually, instead of allowing the computing system to drive the vehicle autonomously [paragraph 5]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of King with raising one or more alerts or alarms as taught by Golov so as to allow the system to notify a driver of a vehicle when a fault has occurred, even providing the option for the driver to assume manual control of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON G CAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 7:30am - 4:30pm EST to Friday 7:30pm - 4:30am.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/AARON G CAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights