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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 13-14 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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 1, 3, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram et al. (US 2018/0050695 A1) in view of Yao (US 2021/0094578 A1).
As to claims 1 and 14, Sundaram discloses an autonomous driving control apparatus comprising: a sensor (para. 0030, 0035-0037) configured to obtain surrounding information of an autonomous vehicle; a storage (para. 0028) configured to store high definition map information around the autonomous vehicle (para. 0036-0037, 0044); and a controller (para. 0003-0008) configured to calculate a control-following route according to a predetermined driving strategy based on the surrounding information and the high definition map information (para. 0037, desired route), calculate an expected driving route on which the autonomous vehicle is expected to be driven (para. 0041-0044, first/second predicted path), when autonomous driving according to the control-following route is performed, determine whether following-route deviation of the autonomous vehicle is expected, by comparing the control-following route with the expected driving route (para. 0051, 0066), and change the driving strategy based on whether the following-route deviation of the autonomous vehicle is expected (para. 0051, 0066); and control the autonomous vehicle based on the changed driving strategy (Abstract). Sundaram does not explicitly disclose obtain at least one of a behavior, a driving intention, or a driving path of at least one object based on the surrounding information, determine a driving strategy based on the at least one of the behavior, the driving intention, or the driving path of the at least one object. However, Yao teaches obtain at least one of a behavior, a driving intention, or a driving path of at least one object based on the surrounding information, determine a driving strategy based on the at least one of the behavior, the driving intention, or the driving path of the at least one object (Abstract, para. 0105). Therefore, given the teaching of Yao, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the apparatus/method of Sundaram, by employing the well-known or conventional features of determine a driving strategy based on the at least one of the behavior, the driving intention, or the driving path of the at least one object, to avoid the object and ensures driving safety.
As to claim 3, Sundaram further discloses wherein the controller is configured to: calculate an expected driving route by applying at least one of a yaw rate, a departure distance (para. 0004, 0011), a departure angle, a speed, or acceleration of the autonomous vehicle to a predetermined lookup table.
As to claims 13 and 20, Sundaram further discloses wherein the controller is configured to: change the driving strategy so as to perform a minimal risk maneuver control, when a difference between the control-following route and the expected driving route exceeds a predetermined threshold value (para. 0051, 0066).
Claims 2, 4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram and Yao, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, further in view of Jia et al. (US 2024/0231377 A1).
As to claims 2 and 15, Sundaram does not explicitly disclose the controller is configured to: calculate or estimate a departure angle over time and a departure distance over time by using a dynamics model of the autonomous vehicle; and calculate or estimate the expected driving route based on the departure angle over time and the departure distance over time. However, Jia teaches calculate or estimate a departure angle over time and a departure distance over time by using a dynamics model of the autonomous vehicle; and calculate or estimate the expected driving route based on the departure angle over time and the departure distance over time (para. 0148, 0167, 0190). Therefore, given the teaching of Jia, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the apparatus/method of Sundaram, by employing the well-known or conventional features of calculate expected driving route based on departure angle/distance, to determine a predicted driving path and deviation between the predicted driving path and the desired driving path.
As to claims 4 and 16, Jia further teaches the use of machine learning to determine driving route (0169-0171).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-7PM.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights