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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 6, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application amendment filed on September 5, 2025. Claims 1-5, 7-21 are currently pending. Claim 6 is cancelled. Claim 21 is new.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0159632, filed on November 18, 2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
No action the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted on September 5, 2025 have overcome the 35 35 USC 103 rejections. However, claims 1-5 & 7-20 are further rejected via 35 USC 103 in view of US 2008/0243389, to Inoue et al. Further a 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been added. The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained for the reasons outlined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding The 35 USC 101 rejection, the applicant first argues in McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), that an abstract idea can be patent eligible if directed to “a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome defined by the claimed invention”. Secondly, the applicant argues that allowing a vehicle to determine its final driving path based on determined risks on a grid map which are assigned by a risk score corresponding to the grid of the grid map. Finally, the applicant argues that the invention of the instant application is patent eligible due to it being an “[i]mprovement to…a technology or technical field”. Regarding the first and final arguments, while particular solutions to a particular problem are patent eligible, when analyzing the claims as shown in the 35 USC 101 rejection below, it is not clear from the claims that there is a clear improvement of the technology. Regarding the second argument, the examiner agrees that allowing a vehicle to determine its final driving path based on determined risks on a grid map which are assigned by a risk score corresponding to the grid of the grid map would be potentially eligible subject matter. However, the claims in question merely recite claims that ultimately result a generation of a grid map with derived risk values. The step of the vehicle actually performing an action as a result of the grid map and risk values are absent from the claims. For these reasons, the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained and updated to reject the amended limitations of claim 1.
Regarding the applications arguments addressing the 35 USC 103 rejection, the applicant argues that the rejection does not disclose “…a height of the virtual model is linearly reduced in a forward direction up to the effective distance…” and “…the height of the virtual height model is reflected in a grid…” The examiner believes the broadest reasonable interpretation of …linearly reduced in a forward direction… is captured within Inoue and the nature of driving a vehicle. Since Inoue teaches a safety keeping area based on the height of the vehicle and a deceleration rate when approaching an obstacle. While the instant application correlates effective distance with velocity and reaction time. This mathematical formula is an inherent part of driving (e.g. stopping distance is based on velocity and time) where there is larger risk when an obstacle is closer to the vehicle, and a lower risk when the obstacle is further from the vehicle. This inherency of driving when considered with the height-based safe keeping area of Inoue fulfill the rejection below. Further, the examiner believes that the grid map in question is sufficiently shown in Figure 2 of Inoue, which includes a representation of the safety-keeping area. Therefore for these reasons, the 35 USC 103 rejection is maintained.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 & 15 …recite wherein the risks in the grid map are reduced from a front of the surrounding vehicle up to the effective distance according to the height of the virtual height model. The limitations prior to this amended limitation do not contain a reference to the risks being in the grid map. Therefore, there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. For examination on its merits, it will be interpreted as-written.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus and Claim 15 is directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1-5 & 7-21 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case independent claims 1 & 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An autonomous driving control apparatus, comprising:
one or more processors; and
a non-transitory memory storing instructions for determining a driving path of an autonomous vehicle, wherein execution of the instructions causes the one or more processors to:
determine risks for the two or more driving path candidates based on the swept paths, and to determine the driving path of the autonomous vehicle based on the risks determined for the two or more driving path candidates.
calculate an effective distance proposal to a speed Vveh of a surrounding object and a human average reaction time Treact;
generate a virtual height model, wherein a height of the virtual height model is linearly reduced in a forward direction, up to the effective distance along a lane link where the surrounding vehicle is traveling; and
generate a grid map where information about the height of the virtual height model is reflected in the grid, and
wherein the risks in the grid map are reduced from a front of the surrounding vehicle up to the effective distance according to the height of the virtual height model.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine risks for the two or more driving path candidates based on the swept paths, and to determine the driving path of the autonomous vehicle based on the risks determined for the two or more driving path candidates” in the context of this claim encompasses anticipating the actions of the surrounding objects while driving. “calculate an effective distance proposal to a speed Vveh of a surrounding object and a human average reaction time Treact” in the context of this claim encompasses determining safe distance from an object while driving. “generate a virtual height model, wherein a height of the virtual height model is linearly reduced in a forward direction, up to the effective distance along a lane link where the surrounding vehicle is traveling” and “wherein the risks in the grid map are reduced from a front of the surrounding vehicle up to the effective distance according to the height of the virtual height model” in the context of this claim encompasses determining a danger zone where one may be unsafe with respect to driving near the object. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim 15, which is of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, prong I.
101 Analysis – Step2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An autonomous driving control apparatus, comprising:
one or more processors; and
a non-transitory memory storing instructions for determining a driving path of an autonomous vehicle, wherein execution of the instructions causes the one or more processors to:
determine risks for the two or more driving path candidates based on the swept paths, and to determine the driving path of the autonomous vehicle based on the risks determined for the two or more driving path candidates.
calculate an effective distance proposal to a speed Vveh of a surrounding object and a human average reaction time Treact;
generate a virtual height model, wherein a height of the virtual height model is linearly reduced in a forward direction, up to the effective distance along a lane link where the surrounding vehicle is traveling; and
generate a grid map where information about the height of the virtual height model is reflected in the grid, and
wherein the risks in the grid map are reduced from a front of the surrounding vehicle up to the effective distance according to the height of the virtual height model.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “generate a grid map where information about the height of the virtual height model is reflected in the grid” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic processors to perform the processes. In particular the “generate a grid map where information about the height of the virtual height model is reflected in the grid” step amounts to placing the virtual height model onto a graph or grid in order to visualize the previously calculated properties, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processors and memory merely describes how to generally “apply” and “display” the otherwise mental judgements using generic components in a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment. The grid system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the generate step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim [19] does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of [20] amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of [21] the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “generate a grid map where information about the height of the virtual height model is reflected in the grid” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) indicate that displaying results based on collecting and analyzing information in order to limit the abstract idea is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence claim 1 is not patent eligible. Claim 15is also not patent eligible for the same reasons as stated in the above claim 1 rejection.
Dependent claims 2-14 & 16-21 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-14 & 16-20, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 1-21 are patent ineligible.
In order to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection, the examiner recommends claim language which would require special circuitry. For example, --wherein one or more processors send one or more control signals to operate the autonomous vehicle—so long as the added claim language is not new matter.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0190404 A1, to Blake et al. (previously of record) in view of US 2008/0243389, to Inoue et al. (hereafter Inoue) (newly of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Blake discloses An autonomous driving control apparatus (Blake [0085] & Fig. 10, Examiner Note: Blake discloses an on-board computer system of an autonomous vehicle, A1), comprising: one or more processors (Blake [0170], Examiner Note: Blake discloses using one or more processors to execute the method); and
a non-transitory memory storing instructions for determining a driving path of the autonomous vehicle, wherein execution of the instructions causes the one or more processors to (Blake [0042], Examiner Note: Blake discloses using a computer and memory with code to execute the method):
calculate paths swept by a part or all of a body of an autonomous vehicle with respect to two or more driving path candidates of the autonomous vehicle (Blake [0096] & Fig. 10, Examiner Note: Blake discloses a simulator A5 (i.e. path calculation device) which generates candidates paths); and
determine risks for the two or more driving path candidates based on the swept paths, and to determine the driving path of the autonomous vehicle based on the risks determined for the two or more driving path candidates (Blake [0096] & Fig. 10, Examiner Note: The same simulator A5 (i.e. controller) also associates each generated candidate path with a collision risk).
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: generate a virtual height model for an object around each of the two or more driving path (Blake [0090], Examiner Note: Blake discloses using a 3D bounding box (i.e. virtual height model) to determine the location, orientation, and size of objects); and
determine the risks based on the virtual height model (Blake [0099], Examiner Note: Blake discloses using object analysis (e.g. 3d bounding box described above) to determine the risk of each swept path).
However, Blake does not specifically disclose calculate an effective distance proposal to a speed Vveh of a surrounding object and a human average reaction time Treact; generate a virtual height model, wherein a height of the virtual height model is linearly reduced in a forward direction, up to the effective distance along a lane link where the surrounding vehicle is traveling; and generate a grid map where information about the height of the virtual height model is reflected in the grid and wherein the risks in the grid map are reduced from a front of the surrounding vehicle up to the effective distance according to the height of the virtual height model.
Inoue, in the same field of endeavor, teaches calculate an effective distance proposal to a speed Vveh of a surrounding object and a human average reaction time Treact (Inoue [0036], Examiner Note: Inoue teaches a safety keeping area (i.e. effective distance) which Is calculated in part by vehicle position velocity (i.e. Vveh); [0076], Examiner Note: Inoue further teaches changing the safety keeping area as a function of driver reaction time (i.e. Treact)); generate a virtual height model, wherein a height of the virtual height model is linearly reduced in a forward direction, up to the effective distance along a lane link where the surrounding vehicle is traveling (Inoue [0072], Examiner Note: Inoue teaches changing the safety keeping area in the vertical direction (i.e. virtual height model) based on the height of the vehicle); and generate a grid map where information about the height of the virtual height model is reflected in the grid (Inoue [0033] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Inoue teaches reflecting the safety keeping area in a map which includes an x and y axis as well as x and y coordinates (i.e. grid map)), and wherein the risks in the grid map are reduced from a front of the surrounding vehicle up to the effective distance according to the height of the virtual height model (Inoue [0036], Examiner Note: Inoue teaches a safety keeping area (i.e. effective distance) which Is calculated in part by vehicle position velocity (i.e. Vveh); [0076], Examiner Note: Inoue further teaches changing the safety keeping area as a function of driver reaction time (i.e. Treact). Since the risk of collision increases based on velocity and reaction time, the effective distance is also an inherent property when considering risk).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to further modify the path planning method of Blake with the safety keeping area generation of Inoue in order to improve safety of a movable body by preventing collision thereof (Inoue [0002]).
Regarding Claim 3, Blake in view of Inoue, as shown above, teaches The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the risks, based on the swept paths,
Blake further discloses according to at least one of a position occupied by an object around each of the two or more driving path candidates or a position determined as being occupied in a future by the object around each of the two or more driving path candidates (Blake [0159] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Blake teaches determining risks of paths based on position of vehicle Oi which is near both driving path candidates).
With respect to Claim 15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 21, Blake in view of Inoue teaches The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 1,
Blake further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to control the autonomous vehicle based on the determined driving path (Blake [0012], Examiner Note: Blake discloses an autonomous vehicle planner which plans vehicle paths to be free of collisions).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210190404 A1, to Blake et al. (previously of record) in view of US 2008/0243389, to Inoue et al. (newly of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0080928 A1, to Wasiek et al. (previously of record)
Regarding Claim 2, as shown above, Blake in view of Inoue, teaches The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 1,
However, Blake does not specifically disclose wherein the autonomous vehicle includes a tractor part and a trailer part, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to calculate the paths swept by the part or all of the body of the autonomous vehicle, based on a path swept by the tractor part with respect to each of the two or more driving path candidates and a path swept by the trailer part with respect to each of the two or more driving path candidates.
Wasiek, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the autonomous vehicle includes a tractor part and a trailer part (Wasiek Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Wasiek shows a vehicle (i.e. tractor) with a trailer), and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to calculate the paths swept by the part or all of the body of the autonomous vehicle, based on a path swept by the tractor part with respect to each of the two or more driving path candidates and a path swept by the trailer part with respect to each of the two or more driving path candidates (Wasiek [0006]-[0007], Examiner Note: Wasiek teaches using the vehicle and the trailer to create a nominal track based on swept paths of both the vehicle and the trailer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to further modify the nominal tractor-trailer path calculating method of Blake in view of Inoue with the curvature calculation method of Nakamura in order to safely allow larger vehicles and vehicles towing to more safely drive amongst other vehicles.
Claims 4-5, 7-8 & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210190404 A1, to Blake et al. (previously of record) as applied to claim 1 & 3 above, and further in view of US 2022/0089151 A1, to Gyllenhammar et al. (previously of record)
Regarding Claim 4, as shown above, Blake in view of Inoue, teaches The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 3,
However, Blake does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate the grid map where information about the at least one of the position occupied by the object around each of the two or more driving path candidates or the position determined as being occupied in the future by the object around each of the two or more driving path candidates is reflected in a grid, and to determine the risks based on the grid map and the swept paths.
Gyllenhammar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate the grid map where information about the at least one of the position occupied by the object around each of the two or more driving path candidates or the position determined as being occupied in the future by the object around each of the two or more driving path candidates is reflected in a grid, and to determine the risks based on the grid map and the swept paths (Gyllenhammar [0071]-[0074] & Figs. 6 & Fig. 7, Examiner Note: Gyllenhammar teaches creating a risk map (i.e. grid map) on a grid which includes two potential route candidates. [0049] Further, the risk at least partially based on collision where the second vehicle 44 where collision involves a vehicle occupying a space in which the host vehicle seeks to occupy).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to further modify the path planning method of Blake in view of Inoue with the risk map creation method of Gyllenhammar in order to provide the autonomous vehicle with important and detailed information when making route decisions.
Regarding Claim 5, as shown above, Blake in view of Inoue in view further of Gyllenhammar teaches The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 4,
However, the modification does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate the grid map with respect to a current time point and the grid map with respect to a future time point, and to determine the risks based on the grid map with respect to the current time point, the grid map with respect to the future time point, and the swept paths.
Gyllenhammar teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate the grid map with respect to a current time point and the grid map with respect to a future time point, and to determine the risks based on the grid map with respect to the current time point, the grid map with respect to the future time point, and the swept paths (Gyllenhammar [0069] & Figs. 4 and 5, Examiner Note: Gyllenhammar teaches updating the risk map based on the expected trajectory of the object 44 (e.g. 44’, 44’’, 45, 45’, 45’’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to further modify the path planning method of Blake in view of Inoue, and Gyllenhammar with the risk map creation method of Gyllenhammar in order to provide the autonomous vehicle with important and detailed information when making route decisions.
Regarding Claim 7, as shown above, Blake in view of Inoue in further view of Gyllenhammar teaches The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 4,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to calculate a probability that the object will occupy a position corresponding to the grid in the future and generate the grid map where the probability is reflected in the grid.
Gyllenhammar teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to calculate a probability that the object will occupy a position corresponding to the grid in the future and generate the grid map where the probability is reflected in the grid (Gyllenhammar [0071] & Fig. 7, Examiner Note: Gyllenhammar teaches showing risk probability in the form of patterns or shadings in the particular grid box. Fig. 6 also shows potential trajectories (e.g. 44’, 44’’, 45, 45’, 45’’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to further modify the path planning method of Blake in view of Inoue with the risk map creation method of Gyllenhammar in order to provide the autonomous vehicle with important and detailed information when making route decisions.
Regarding Claim 8, as shown above, Blake in view of Inoue in further view of Gyllenhammar teaches The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 7,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to calculate the probability that the object will occupy the position corresponding to the grid in the future, based on at least one of a driving direction, a speed, or a stop distance of the object.
Gyllenhammar teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to calculate the probability that the object will occupy the position corresponding to the grid in the future, based on at least one of a driving direction, a speed, or a stop distance of the object (Gyllenhammar [0051], Examiner Note: Gyllenhammar teaches determining risk based on speed of the other vehicle and ego-vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to further modify the path planning method of Blake in view of Inoue with the risk map creation method of Gyllenhammar in order to provide the autonomous vehicle with important and detailed information when making route decisions.
With respect to Claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 4. Therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
With respect to Claim 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 7, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 7.
Claims 9-14 & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0190404 A1, to Blake et al. (previously of record) in view of US 2008/0243389, to Inoue et al. (newly of record) as applied to claim 1 & 15 above, and further in view of US 2016/0259338 A1 to Nakamura. (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 9, as shown above, Blake in view of Inoue, teaches The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 1,
However, Blake does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine at least one of driving stability or a detour degree corresponding to each of the two or more driving path candidates, and to determine the driving path according to the at least one of the driving stability or the detour degree.
Nakamura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine at least one of driving stability or a detour degree corresponding to each of the two or more driving path candidates (Nakamura [0048], Examiner Note: Nakamura teaches determining the straightness (i.e. driving stability) of a path candidate), and to determine the driving path according to the at least one of the driving stability or the detour degree (Nakamura [0058] & Equation 1, Examiner Note: Nakamura teaches calculating straightness based on curvature using a weight, λ as well as an integrated value (i.e. weighted square)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the path planning method of Blake in view of Inoue with the curvature calculation method of Nakamura in order to determine the safest and shortest route of all the potential candidates.
Regarding Claim 10, as shown above, Blake in view of Nakamura teaches The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the driving stability based on a curvature of each of the two or more driving path candidates (Nakamura [0048], [0058], & Equation 1, Examiner Note: As shown above, Nakamura teaches determining straightness (i.e. driving stability) based on calculating curvature using equation 1).
Regarding Claim 11, as shown above, Blake in view of Inoue and further in view of Nakamura teaches The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the driving stability based on at least one of an average curvature of the two or more driving path candidates, a maximum curvature of the two or more driving path candidates, or a weighted average of the average curvature and the maximum curvature (Nakamura [0058] & Equation 1, Examiner Note: As shown above, Nakamura teaches calculating straightness based on curvature using a weight, λ as well as an integrated value (i.e. maximum curvature)).
Claim 12, as shown above, Blake in view of Inoue and further in view of Nakamura teaches The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the detour degree based on at least one of a detour distance or a detour time of each of the two or more driving path candidates, according to a reference path (Nakamura [0058], Examiner Notes: Since curvature is identical to detour distance under broadest reasonable interpretation, as shown above, Nakamura also calculates detour distance).
Claim 13, as shown above, Blake in view of Inoue and further in view of Nakamura teaches The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 9,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to calculate at least one of scores according to the risks, a score according to the driving stability, or a score according to the detour degree, and to determine the driving path of the autonomous vehicle based on a weighted sum or a weighted average of at least one of the scores according to the risks, the score according to the driving stability, or the score according to the detour degree.
Blake further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to calculate at least one of scores according to the risks, a score according to the driving stability, or a score according to the detour degree (Blake Fig. 11, Examiner Note: Blake teaches computing Fd (i.e. risk score) in step S14, ranking the scores in step S15, and outputting a chosen path based on the ranking in step S18), and to determine the driving path of the autonomous vehicle based on a weighted sum or a weighted average of at least one of the scores according to the risks, the score according to the driving stability, or the score according to the detour degree (Blake [0116] & Equation 3, Examiner Note: Blake teaches having a weighted sum to calculate Fd).
Regarding Claim 14, as shown above, Blake in view of Inoue teaches The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 1,
However, Blake does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a following speed based on at least one of a curvature of the driving path or a forward object on the path, which corresponds to the driving path, swept by the part or all of the body of the autonomous vehicle, and to perform autonomous driving control of the autonomous vehicle depending on the following speed.
Nakamura teaches wherein the one or more processors configured to determine a following speed based on at least one of a curvature of the driving path or a forward object on the path, which corresponds to the driving path, swept by the part or all of the body of the autonomous vehicle (Nakamura [0077], Examiner Note: Nakamura teaches adjusting the lateral acceleration (i.e. following speed) of the vehicle based on the straightness (i.e. curvature) of the road), and performs autonomous driving control of the autonomous vehicle depending on the following speed (Nakamura [0025] & [0077], Examiner Note: Nakamura teaches adjusting the lateral acceleration (i.e. following speed) of the vehicle based on the straightness (i.e. curvature) of the road which is executed autonomously).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the path planning method of Blake in view of Inoue with the curvature calculation method of Nakamura in order to determine the safest and shortest route of all the potential candidates.
Regarding Claim 18, as shown above, Blake in view of Inoue teaches The autonomous driving control method of claim 15,
However, Blake does not disclose further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, driving stability corresponding to each of the two or more driving path candidates based on a curvature of each of the two or more driving path candidates, wherein the determining of the driving path of the autonomous vehicle includes: determining, by the one or more processors, the driving path according to the driving stability.
Nakamura teaches further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, driving stability corresponding to each of the two or more driving path candidates based on a curvature of each of the two or more driving path candidates (Nakamura [0048], [0058], & Equation 1, Examiner Note: As shown above, Nakamura teaches determining straightness (i.e. driving stability) based on calculating curvature using equation 1), wherein the determining of the driving path of the autonomous vehicle includes: determining, by the one or more processors, the driving path according to the driving stability (Nakamura [0058] & Equation 1, Examiner Note: As shown above, Nakamura teaches calculating straightness based on curvature using a weight, λ as well as an integrated value (i.e. maximum curvature)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the path planning method of Blake in view of Inoue with the curvature calculation method of Nakamura in order to determine the safest and shortest route of all the potential candidates.
Regarding Claim 19, as shown above, Blake in view of Inoue The autonomous driving control method of claim 15,
However Blake does not disclose further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, a detour degree corresponding to each of the two or more driving path candidates based on at least one of a detour distance or a detour time of each of the two or more driving path candidates, according to a reference path, wherein the determining of the driving path of the autonomous vehicle by the includes: determining, by the one or more processors, the driving path according to the detour degree.
Nakamura teaches further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, a detour degree corresponding to each of the two or more driving path candidates based on at least one of a detour distance or a detour time of each of the two or more driving path candidates, according to a reference path (Nakamura [0058], Examiner Notes: Since curvature is identical to detour distance under broadest reasonable interpretation, as shown above, Nakamura also calculates detour distance), wherein the determining of the driving path of the autonomous vehicle by the includes: determining, by the one or more processors, the driving path according to the detour degree (Nakamura [0058], Examiner Notes: Nakamura discloses determining the detour distance, as shown above and thereby determining the driving degree of the driving path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the path planning method of Blake in view of Inoue with the curvature calculation method of Nakamura in order to determine the safest and shortest route of all the potential candidates.
Regarding Claim 20, as shown above, Blake in view of Inoue The autonomous driving control method of claim 15,
Blake further discloses wherein the determining of the driving path of the autonomous vehicle includes: calculating, by the one or more processors, at least one of scores according to the risks, a score according to the driving stability, or a score according to the detour degree (Blake Fig. 11, Examiner Note: Blake teaches computing Fd (i.e. risk score) in step S14, ranking the scores in step S15, and outputting a chosen path based on the ranking in step S18); and determining, by the one or more processors, the driving path of the autonomous vehicle based on a weighted sum or a weighted average of at least one of the scores according to the risks, the score according to the driving stability, or the score according to the detour degree (Blake [0116] & Equation 3, Examiner Note: Blake teaches having a weighted sum to calculate Fd).
However, Blake does not specifically disclose further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, at least one of driving stability or a detour degree corresponding to each of the two or more driving path candidates,
Nakamura teaches further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, at least one of driving stability or a detour degree corresponding to each of the two or more driving path candidates (Nakamura [0048], Examiner Note: Nakamura teaches determining the straightness (i.e. driving stability) of a path candidate),
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the path planning method of Blake in view of Inoue with the curvature calculation method of Nakamura in order to determine the safest and shortest route of all the potential candidates.
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 MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached on (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MICHAEL T. DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666