DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s response filed on October 27th, 2025. Claims 18-21, 23-29, and 32-42 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 27th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s response filed on October 27th, 2025, examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed October 27th, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US-20190361456 (hereinafter, “Zeng,” newly of record).
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.
Claim(s) 18-21, 23-24, 27-29, 32, 33, 35-36, 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US-20190361456 (hereinafter, “Zeng,” newly of record) in view of US-20190346275 (hereinafter, “Kelly,” previously of record).
Regarding claim 18 Zeng discloses a processor (see at least [0035]; “each vehicle computing device 104 may include one or more processors 116”) comprising:
processing circuitry to…
determine based at least on applying a first speed profile that represents a second velocity to a future path for the ego-machine within an environment, a first future trajectory for the ego-machine to navigate (see at least [0149]; “As noted above, each sensorimotor primitive module is executable (when selected and enabled) to generate a vehicle trajectory and speed profile for automatically controlling the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to perform a specific driving maneuver. Each sensorimotor primitive module maps information from the world representation to a vehicle trajectory and speed profile”, and [0086]; “Given the same sensor data input (i.e., feature map), different sensorimotor primitive modules in the ensemble produces different trajectories and speed profiles…scene understanding module 150 is responsible for selecting, based on the driving destination and current perception of the environment, the particular ones of the sensorimotor primitive modules to be executed. The output (e.g., vehicle trajectory and speed profile) of each sensorimotor primitive module that is selected by the scene understanding module may be used by vehicle control module to control the vehicle. As such, the scene understanding module is the central gluing logic. With the mission context produced internally, it creates a sequence of primitives to be selected and executed such that the autonomous vehicle can safely reach the destination while keep the passengers/driver experience as pleasant as possible,” the current location of the vehicle to the destination corresponds to the path under broadest reasonable interpretation, the path can take various different forms to get from point A to point B), the first future trajectory including a first longitudinal distance from a current location of the ego-machine and proceeding along the future path (see at least [0089]; “each vehicle trajectory and speed profile includes information that specifies longitudinal distance (x), lateral distance (y), heading (8), and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle that will travel through in future time instants.”).
determine, based at least on applying a second speed profile that represents a third velocity to the future path of the ego-machine within the environment, a second future trajectory for the ego-machine to navigate (see at least [0149]; “As noted above, each sensorimotor primitive module is executable (when selected and enabled) to generate a vehicle trajectory and speed profile for automatically controlling the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to perform a specific driving maneuver. Each sensorimotor primitive module maps information from the world representation to a vehicle trajectory and speed profile. Each vehicle trajectory and speed profile maps to one or more control signals that cause one or more control actions that automatically control the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to perform a specific driving maneuver that addresses the particular driving scenario encountered during the autonomous driving task and operation of the autonomous vehicle,” the specific driving maneuver corresponds to the future path in the environment, each sensorimotor primitive module applies its own speed profile to yield a trajectory), the second future trajectory including a second longitudinal distance from the current location of the ego-machine and proceeding along the future path (see at least [0089]; “each vehicle trajectory and speed profile includes information that specifies longitudinal distance (x), lateral distance (y), heading (8), and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle that will travel through in future time instants.”).
Zeng does not teach receive, while an ego-machine is navigating…one or more user inputs for updating one or more preferences corresponding to at least a first velocity…
…determine, based at least on the second velocity being closer to the first velocity for the ACC system than the third velocity, the first future trajectory; and
cause…the ego-machine to navigate according to the second velocity and along the first future trajectory.
Kelly, in the same field of endeavor, teaches receive, while an ego-machine is navigating…one or more user inputs for updating one or more preferences corresponding to one or more velocities… (see at least [0022-0026]; “the method comprises obtaining one or more objectives and determining a journey guidance policy based on one or more objectives…the one or more journey objectives may comprise a comfort objective and/or a legality objective” and [0330-0331]; “The legality objective is indicative of an attitude towards speed limits. The legality objective may comprise an absolute speed value indicative of a desired maximum speed relative to the speed limit (for example, +3 mph, or −8 mph, or +2 kph, or −13 kph), or a relative speed value indicative of a desired maximum percentage of the speed limit (for example 100%, or 95%, or 102%, etc.) …the journey objectives and destination objectives may be obtained by the user inputting them to the route guidance module 110”);
…determine, based at least on the second velocity being closer to the first velocity for the ACC system than the third velocity, the first future trajectory (see at least [0508]; “FIG. 30 is an example representation of a population of candidate speed profiles comprising a plurality of initial speed profiles. In this representation, there are four initial speed profiles. However, it will be appreciated that the plurality of initial speed profiles may comprise any number of initial speed profiles that is greater than or equal to two… In Step S2730, the population of candidate speed profiles is evaluated. This may be done by scoring each of the candidate speed profiles against the objective to be achieved at the end of the window and optionally also the journey objective. There are any number of ways to score each of the candidate speed profiles against the objectives (and optionally also the comfort objective), which may depend on the particular implementation of the route guidance module 110 and the nature of the objectives (and comfort objective),” and [0182]; “Selecting one of the plurality of candidate speed profiles to be the target speed profile may further comprise: scoring each of the plurality of candidate speed profiles based on an assessment of the arrival state against the objective; and selecting the candidate speed profile with the highest score to be the target speed profile,” the profiles can be scored based on meeting the objective the objective may be speed related such as within a range of the speed limit, the candidate closest to meeting this objective of the speed, would score the highest. Additionally, the candidates can be scored based on a punctuality preference which determines which velocities of the speed profiles would yield the closest arrival by the preferred time and therefore are the closest to the user inputted first velocity based on user preference); and
cause…the ego-machine to navigate according to the second velocity and along the first future trajectory (see at least [0297]; “Additionally, or alternatively, the driving action data 130 may be output for use by an [SAE0] vehicle (for example, to set a speed limiter), or for use by an [SAE1]-[SAE5] vehicle, for automated control of the vehicle. In these cases, the driving action data 130 may be output to a control module within the vehicle,” SAE1 includes adaptive cruise control systems).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the speed profile of Zeng with the user preferences of Kelly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of helping an operator to meet their desired journey goals (see at least Kelly [0018]).
Regarding claim 19 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Zeng discloses wherein
the first longitudinal distance from the current location of the ego-machine and proceeding along the future path is determined based at least on the second velocity (see at least [0089]; “each vehicle trajectory and speed profile includes information that specifies longitudinal distance (x), lateral distance (y), heading (8), and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle that will travel through in future time instants,” and [0143]; “Each waypoint (P) is defined by information that specifies longitudinal and lateral distance (X, Y), heading (8) with respect to the X-axis, and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle 10 that will travel through in future time instants,” the waypoints are determined with respect to the velocity of the speed profile); and
the second longitudinal distance from the current location of the ego-machine and proceeding along the future path is determined based at least on the third velocity (see at least [0089]; “each vehicle trajectory and speed profile includes information that specifies longitudinal distance (x), lateral distance (y), heading (8), and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle that will travel through in future time instants,” and [0143]; “Each waypoint (P) is defined by information that specifies longitudinal and lateral distance (X, Y), heading (8) with respect to the X-axis, and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle 10 that will travel through in future time instants,” the waypoints are determined with respect to the velocity of the speed profile).
Regarding claim 20 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Zeng discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to determine, based at least on sensor data obtained using the ego-machine, the future path for the ego-machine (see at least [0144]; “At 302, the sensor system 128 of the autonomous vehicle acquires sensor data from the external environment,” and [0146]; “At 306, the scene understanding module 150 of the high-level controller, processes a feature map of the world representation, navigation route data that indicates a route of the autonomous vehicle, and location/position information that indicates the location of the autonomous vehicle to define an autonomous driving task,” the driving task corresponds to Applicant’s future path and is determined with respect to the sensor data).
Regarding claim 21 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Zeng discloses wherein the processor is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (see at least [0001]; “The present disclosure generally relates to autonomous vehicles, and more particularly relates to autonomous vehicle controllers, autonomous vehicle control system systems and associated methods for controlling autonomous vehicles.”); a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (see at least Fig. 1; sensor system 28); a system that performs one or more simulation operations; a system that performs one or more digital twinning operations; a system that performs one or more deep learning operations (see at least [0071]; “In various embodiments, the controller 34 implements machine learning techniques to assist the functionality of the controller 34, such as feature detection/classification, obstruction mitigation, route traversal, mapping, sensor integration, ground-truth determination, and the like.”); a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system that performs one or more conversational Al operations; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
Regarding claim 23 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Zeng discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to:
determine one or more future paths associated with one or more objects, (see at least [0130]; The information from the perception map 141 that is processed can include, for example, bounding box locations, orientations and velocities of detected objects from the perception map 141, road features and free space features for the environment as indicated by the perception map 141, etc. Based on the object information and lane/road geometrical information from the perception map 141, the PL/MPC sensorimotor primitive processor module 143 can execute each of the PL/MPC sensorimotor primitive modules 142A' that has been selected and enabled to generate a corresponding vehicle trajectory and speed profile that includes information that specifies longitudinal distance (x), lateral distance (y), heading (8), and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle that will travel through in future time instants, as described below with reference to FIG. 9B,” having the orientation and velocity of an object constitutes determining the path of the object); and
wherein the first future trajectory is further determined based at least on the one or more future paths associated with the one or more objects (see at least [0130]; The information from the perception map 141 that is processed can include, for example, bounding box locations, orientations and velocities of detected objects from the perception map 141, road features and free space features for the environment as indicated by the perception map 141, etc. Based on the object information and lane/road geometrical information from the perception map 141, the PL/MPC sensorimotor primitive processor module 143 can execute each of the PL/MPC sensorimotor primitive modules 142A' that has been selected and enabled to generate a corresponding vehicle trajectory and speed profile that includes information that specifies longitudinal distance (x), lateral distance (y), heading (8), and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle that will travel through in future time instants, as described below with reference to FIG. 9B,” the trajectory is determined with respect to the object information which includes its predicted path based on orientation and velocity).
Regarding claim 24 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Zeng discloses wherein the first speed profile is associated with the first longitudinal distance; and the second speed profile is associated with the second longitudinal distance (see at least [0149]; “As noted above, each sensorimotor primitive module is executable (when selected and enabled) to generate a vehicle trajectory and speed profile for automatically controlling the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to perform a specific driving maneuver. Each sensorimotor primitive module maps information from the world representation to a vehicle trajectory and speed profile. Each vehicle trajectory and speed profile maps to one or more control signals that cause one or more control actions that automatically control the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to perform a specific driving maneuver that addresses the particular driving scenario encountered during the autonomous driving task and operation of the autonomous vehicle,” each module generates its own speed profile and trajectory which comprise their own longitudinal distances).
Regarding claim 27 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Zeng discloses wherein the first speed profile further represents at least one of: a time period; a displacement along the future path; the second velocity; an acceleration; or a deceleration (see at least [0130]; “speed profile that includes information that specifies longitudinal distance (x), lateral distance (y), heading (8), and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle that will travel through in future time instants, as described below with reference to FIG. 9B,” lateral distance corresponds to displacement along the path).
Regarding claim 28 Zeng discloses a method (see at least Fig. 10A and 10B) comprising…
…determining, based at least on speed profiles representing second velocities and a future path for the ego-machine future trajectories (see at least [0149]; “As noted above, each sensorimotor primitive module is executable (when selected and enabled) to generate a vehicle trajectory and speed profile for automatically controlling the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to perform a specific driving maneuver. Each sensorimotor primitive module maps information from the world representation to a vehicle trajectory and speed profile. Each vehicle trajectory and speed profile maps to one or more control signals that cause one or more control actions that automatically control the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to perform a specific driving maneuver that addresses the particular driving scenario encountered during the autonomous driving task and operation of the autonomous vehicle,” the specific driving maneuver corresponds to the future path in the environment, each sensorimotor primitive module applies its own speed profile to yield a trajectory), that include longitudinal distances from a current location of the ego-machine and proceeding along the future path (see at least [0089]; “each vehicle trajectory and speed profile includes information that specifies longitudinal distance (x), lateral distance (y), heading (8), and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle that will travel through in future time instants”)
Zeng does not teach receiving, while an ego-machine is navigating using an adaptive cruise control (ACC) system, one or more user inputs for updating one or more preferences corresponding to at least a first velocity associated with the ACC system;
determining, based at least one the one or more preferences corresponding to the first velocity associated with the ACC system, future trajectory of the future trajectories, the future trajectory being associated with a second velocity of the second velocities; and
causing, using the ACC system, the ego-machine to navigate according to the second velocity of thee one or more second velocities.
Kelly, in the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving, while an ego-machine is navigating…one or more user inputs for updating one or more preferences corresponding to one or more velocities… (see at least [0022-0026]; “the method comprises obtaining one or more objectives and determining a journey guidance policy based on one or more objectives…the one or more journey objectives may comprise a comfort objective and/or a legality objective” and [0330-0331]; “The legality objective is indicative of an attitude towards speed limits. The legality objective may comprise an absolute speed value indicative of a desired maximum speed relative to the speed limit (for example, +3 mph, or −8 mph, or +2 kph, or −13 kph), or a relative speed value indicative of a desired maximum percentage of the speed limit (for example 100%, or 95%, or 102%, etc.) …the journey objectives and destination objectives may be obtained by the user inputting them to the route guidance module 110”);
determining, based at least on the one or more preferences…a future trajectory of the future trajectories, the future trajectory being associated with a second velocity, of the second velocities (see at least [0508]; “FIG. 30 is an example representation of a population of candidate speed profiles comprising a plurality of initial speed profiles. In this representation, there are four initial speed profiles. However, it will be appreciated that the plurality of initial speed profiles may comprise any number of initial speed profiles that is greater than or equal to two… In Step S2730, the population of candidate speed profiles is evaluated. This may be done by scoring each of the candidate speed profiles against the objective to be achieved at the end of the window and optionally also the journey objective. There are any number of ways to score each of the candidate speed profiles against the objectives (and optionally also the comfort objective), which may depend on the particular implementation of the route guidance module 110 and the nature of the objectives (and comfort objective),” and [0182]; “Selecting one of the plurality of candidate speed profiles to be the target speed profile may further comprise: scoring each of the plurality of candidate speed profiles based on an assessment of the arrival state against the objective; and selecting the candidate speed profile with the highest score to be the target speed profile,” the profiles can be scored based on meeting the objective the objective may be speed related such as within a range of the speed limit, the candidate closest to meeting this objective of the speed, would score the highest. Additionally, the candidates can be scored based on a punctuality preference which determines which velocities of the speed profiles would yield the closest arrival by the preferred time and therefore are the closest to the user inputted first velocity based on user preference); and
causing…the ego-machine to navigate according to closest velocity and along the future trajectory (see at least [0297]; “Additionally, or alternatively, the driving action data 130 may be output for use by an [SAE0] vehicle (for example, to set a speed limiter), or for use by an [SAE1]-[SAE5] vehicle, for automated control of the vehicle. In these cases, the driving action data 130 may be output to a control module within the vehicle,” SAE1 includes adaptive cruise control systems).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the speed profile of Zeng with the user preferences of Kelly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of helping an operator to meet their desired journey goals (see at least Kelly [0018]).
Regarding claim 29 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Zeng discloses wherein the future trajectories include at least;
the future trajectory of the future trajectories, the future trajectory being associated with the second velocity and including a first longitudinal distance from the current location of the ego-machine and proceeding along the future path (see at least [0089]; “each vehicle trajectory and speed profile includes information that specifies longitudinal distance (x), lateral distance (y), heading (8), and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle that will travel through in future time instants,” and [0143]; “Each waypoint (P) is defined by information that specifies longitudinal and lateral distance (X, Y), heading (8) with respect to the X-axis, and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle 10 that will travel through in future time instants”); and
a second future trajectory of the future trajectories, the second future trajectory being associated with a third velocity of the second velocities including a second longitudinal distance from the current location of the ego-machine and proceeding along the future path (see at least [0089]; “each vehicle trajectory and speed profile includes information that specifies longitudinal distance (x), lateral distance (y), heading (8), and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle that will travel through in future time instants,” and [0143]; “Each waypoint (P) is defined by information that specifies longitudinal and lateral distance (X, Y), heading (8) with respect to the X-axis, and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle 10 that will travel through in future time instants”).
Regarding claim 32 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Zeng discloses further comprising:
determining one or more future paths associated with one or more objects, (see at least [0130]; The information from the perception map 141 that is processed can include, for example, bounding box locations, orientations and velocities of detected objects from the perception map 141, road features and free space features for the environment as indicated by the perception map 141, etc. Based on the object information and lane/road geometrical information from the perception map 141, the PL/MPC sensorimotor primitive processor module 143 can execute each of the PL/MPC sensorimotor primitive modules 142A' that has been selected and enabled to generate a corresponding vehicle trajectory and speed profile that includes information that specifies longitudinal distance (x), lateral distance (y), heading (8), and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle that will travel through in future time instants, as described below with reference to FIG. 9B,” having the orientation and velocity of an object constitutes determining the path of the object); and
wherein the future trajectory from future trajectories is further determined based at least on the one or more future paths associated with the one or more objects (see at least [0130]; The information from the perception map 141 that is processed can include, for example, bounding box locations, orientations and velocities of detected objects from the perception map 141, road features and free space features for the environment as indicated by the perception map 141, etc. Based on the object information and lane/road geometrical information from the perception map 141, the PL/MPC sensorimotor primitive processor module 143 can execute each of the PL/MPC sensorimotor primitive modules 142A' that has been selected and enabled to generate a corresponding vehicle trajectory and speed profile that includes information that specifies longitudinal distance (x), lateral distance (y), heading (8), and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle that will travel through in future time instants, as described below with reference to FIG. 9B,” the trajectory is determined with respect to the object information which includes its predicted path based on orientation and velocity).
Regarding claim 33 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Zeng discloses wherein the longitudinal distances from the current location of the ego-machine and proceeding along the future path are determined based at least on the second velocities represented by the speed profiles (see at least [0089]; “each vehicle trajectory and speed profile includes information that specifies longitudinal distance (x), lateral distance (y), heading (8), and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle that will travel through in future time instants,” and [0143]; “Each waypoint (P) is defined by information that specifies longitudinal and lateral distance (X, Y), heading (8) with respect to the X-axis, and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle 10 that will travel through in future time instants,” the waypoints are determined with respect to the velocity of the speed profile).
Regarding claim 35 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 28. Additionally, Zeng discloses wherein a speed profile of the one or more speed profiles represents at least one of: a time period; a displacement along the future path; the second velocity; an acceleration; or a deceleration (see at least [0130]; “speed profile that includes information that specifies longitudinal distance (x), lateral distance (y), heading (8), and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle that will travel through in future time instants, as described below with reference to FIG. 9B,” lateral distance corresponds to displacement along the path).
Regarding claim 36 Zeng discloses a system (see at least fig. 1) comprising:
one or more processors (see at least [0057]; “The controller 34 includes at least one processor 44”) to…
determine based at least on the future path associated with the ego-machine and a first speed profile that represents at least a second velocity, a first future trajectory (see at least [0149]; “As noted above, each sensorimotor primitive module is executable (when selected and enabled) to generate a vehicle trajectory and speed profile for automatically controlling the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to perform a specific driving maneuver. Each sensorimotor primitive module maps information from the world representation to a vehicle trajectory and speed profile. Each vehicle trajectory and speed profile maps to one or more control signals that cause one or more control actions that automatically control the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to perform a specific driving maneuver that addresses the particular driving scenario encountered during the autonomous driving task and operation of the autonomous vehicle,” the specific driving maneuver corresponds to the future path in the environment, each sensorimotor primitive module applies its own speed profile to yield a trajectory), that is associated with a first longitudinal distance along the future path (see at least [0089]; “each vehicle trajectory and speed profile includes information that specifies longitudinal distance (x), lateral distance (y), heading (8), and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle that will travel through in future time instants.”),
determine based at least on the future path associated with the ego-machine and a second speed profile that represents at least a third velocity, a second future trajectory (see at least [0149]; “As noted above, each sensorimotor primitive module is executable (when selected and enabled) to generate a vehicle trajectory and speed profile for automatically controlling the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to perform a specific driving maneuver. Each sensorimotor primitive module maps information from the world representation to a vehicle trajectory and speed profile. Each vehicle trajectory and speed profile maps to one or more control signals that cause one or more control actions that automatically control the autonomous vehicle to cause the autonomous vehicle to perform a specific driving maneuver that addresses the particular driving scenario encountered during the autonomous driving task and operation of the autonomous vehicle,” the specific driving maneuver corresponds to the future path in the environment, each sensorimotor primitive module applies its own speed profile to yield a trajectory), that is associated with a second longitudinal distance along the future path (see at least [0089]; “each vehicle trajectory and speed profile includes information that specifies longitudinal distance (x), lateral distance (y), heading (8), and desired velocity (v) of the vehicle that will travel through in future time instants.”).
Zeng does not teach receive, based at least on an ego-machine navigating…one or more user inputs for updating one or more preferences corresponding to a first velocity…
…determine, based at least on the second velocity being closer to the first velocity…as compared to the third velocity, the first future trajectory to navigate…and
cause…the ego-machine to navigate according to second velocity and along the first future trajectory.
Kelly, in the same field of endeavor, teaches receive, based at least on an ego-machine navigating…one or more user inputs for updating one or more preferences corresponding to a first velocity… (see at least [0022-0026]; “the method comprises obtaining one or more objectives and determining a journey guidance policy based on one or more objectives…the one or more journey objectives may comprise a comfort objective and/or a legality objective” and [0330-0331]; “The legality objective is indicative of an attitude towards speed limits. The legality objective may comprise an absolute speed value indicative of a desired maximum speed relative to the speed limit (for example, +3 mph, or −8 mph, or +2 kph, or −13 kph), or a relative speed value indicative of a desired maximum percentage of the speed limit (for example 100%, or 95%, or 102%, etc.) …the journey objectives and destination objectives may be obtained by the user inputting them to the route guidance module 110”);
determine, based at least on the second velocity being closer to the first velocity…as compared to the third velocity, the first future trajectory to navigate … (see at least [0508]; “FIG. 30 is an example representation of a population of candidate speed profiles comprising a plurality of initial speed profiles. In this representation, there are four initial speed profiles. However, it will be appreciated that the plurality of initial speed profiles may comprise any number of initial speed profiles that is greater than or equal to two… In Step S2730, the population of candidate speed profiles is evaluated. This may be done by scoring each of the candidate speed profiles against the objective to be achieved at the end of the window and optionally also the journey objective. There are any number of ways to score each of the candidate speed profiles against the objectives (and optionally also the comfort objective), which may depend on the particular implementation of the route guidance module 110 and the nature of the objectives (and comfort objective),” and [0182]; “Selecting one of the plurality of candidate speed profiles to be the target speed profile may further comprise: scoring each of the plurality of candidate speed profiles based on an assessment of the arrival state against the objective; and selecting the candidate speed profile with the highest score to be the target speed profile,” the profiles can be scored based on meeting the objective the objective may be speed related such as within a range of the speed limit, the candidate closest to meeting this objective of the speed, would score the highest. Additionally, the candidates can be scored based on a punctuality preference which determines which velocities of the speed profiles would yield the closest arrival by the preferred time and therefore are the closest to the user inputted first velocity based on user preference); and
cause…the ego-machine to navigate according to second velocity and along the first future trajectory (see at least [0297]; “Additionally, or alternatively, the driving action data 130 may be output for use by an [SAE0] vehicle (for example, to set a speed limiter), or for use by an [SAE1]-[SAE5] vehicle, for automated control of the vehicle. In these cases, the driving action data 130 may be output to a control module within the vehicle,” SAE1 includes adaptive cruise control systems).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the speed profile of Zeng with the user preferences of Kelly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of helping an operator to meet their desired journey goals (see at least Kelly [0018]).
Regarding claim 38 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 36. Additionally, Zeng discloses wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (see at least [0001]; “The present disclosure generally relates to autonomous vehicles, and more particularly relates to autonomous vehicle controllers, autonomous vehicle control system systems and associated methods for controlling autonomous vehicles.”); a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (see at least Fig. 1; sensor system 28); a system that performs one or more simulation operations; a system that performs one or more digital twinning operations; a system that performs one or more deep learning operations (see at least [0071]; “In various embodiments, the controller 34 implements machine learning techniques to assist the functionality of the controller 34, such as feature detection/classification, obstruction mitigation, route traversal, mapping, sensor integration, ground-truth determination, and the like.”); a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system that performs one or more conversational AI operations; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs; a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
Regarding claim 39 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Kelly, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further to;
determine a difference between a speed limit and a set speed associated with the first velocity of the ACC system the one or more user preferences including the difference (see at least [0329-0330]; “Consequently, the comfort indicator may take the form of a maximum allowable level of acceleration for each of one or more different types of acceleration, wherein lower maximums for the allowable levels of acceleration are generally indicative of the higher levels of desired comfort… The legality objective is indicative of an attitude towards speed limits. The legality objective may comprise an absolute speed value indicative of a desired maximum speed relative to the speed limit (for example, +3 mph, or −8 mph, or +2 kph, or −13 kph), or a relative speed value indicative of a desired maximum percentage of the speed limit (for example 100%, or 95%, or 102%, etc.). For example, if the legality objective is set to −3 mph, the maximum allowable speed will be 3 mph below the posted speed limit for each road (for example, on a 30-mph road, the maximum allowable speed would be 27 mph, and for a 50-mph road, the maximum allowable speed would be 47 mph)”), and
determine the one or more speed profiles based at least on the difference (see at least [0182]; “Selecting one of the plurality of candidate speed profiles to be the target speed profile may further comprise: scoring each of the plurality of candidate speed profiles based on an assessment of the arrival state against the objective; and selecting the candidate speed profile with the highest score to be the target speed profile,” the profiles can be scored based on meeting the objective the objective may be speed related such as within a range of the speed limit, the candidate closest to meeting this objective of the speed, would score the highest. Additionally, the candidates can be scored based on a punctuality preference which determines which velocities of the speed profiles would yield the closest arrival by the preferred time and therefore are the closest to the user inputted first velocity based on user preference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the speed profile of Zeng with the user preferences of Kelly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of helping an operator to meet their desired journey goals (see at least Kelly [0018]).
Regarding claim 40 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Kelly, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further to;
determine, based at least on the one or more preferences, one or more factors associated with the ACC system, the one or more factors including at least one of; a speed limit; a maximum speed; a minimum speed; a maximum acceleration; or a minimum acceleration (see at least [0329-0330]; “Consequently, the comfort indicator may take the form of a maximum allowable level of acceleration for each of one or more different types of acceleration, wherein lower maximums for the allowable levels of acceleration are generally indicative of the higher levels of desired comfort… The legality objective is indicative of an attitude towards speed limits. The legality objective may comprise an absolute speed value indicative of a desired maximum speed relative to the speed limit (for example, +3 mph, or −8 mph, or +2 kph, or −13 kph), or a relative speed value indicative of a desired maximum percentage of the speed limit (for example 100%, or 95%, or 102%, etc.). For example, if the legality objective is set to −3 mph, the maximum allowable speed will be 3 mph below the posted speed limit for each road (for example, on a 30-mph road, the maximum allowable speed would be 27 mph, and for a 50-mph road, the maximum allowable speed would be 47 mph)”),
determine the one or more speed profiles based at least one the one or more factors (see at least [0508]; “FIG. 30 is an example representation of a population of candidate speed profiles comprising a plurality of initial speed profiles. In this representation, there are four initial speed profiles. However, it will be appreciated that the plurality of initial speed profiles may comprise any number of initial speed profiles that is greater than or equal to two… In Step S2730, the population of candidate speed profiles is evaluated. This may be done by scoring each of the candidate speed profiles against the objective to be achieved at the end of the window and optionally also the journey objective. There are any number of ways to score each of the candidate speed profiles against the objectives (and optionally also the comfort objective), which may depend on the particular implementation of the route guidance module 110 and the nature of the objectives (and comfort objective),” and [0182]; “Selecting one of the plurality of candidate speed profiles to be the target speed profile may further comprise: scoring each of the plurality of candidate speed profiles based on an assessment of the arrival state against the objective; and selecting the candidate speed profile with the highest score to be the target speed profile,” the profiles can be scored based on meeting the objective the objective may be speed related such as within a range of the speed limit, the candidate closest to meeting this objective of the speed, would score the highest. Additionally, the candidates can be scored based on a punctuality preference which determines which velocities of the speed profiles would yield the closest arrival by the preferred time and therefore are the closest to the user inputted first velocity based on user preference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the speed profile of Zeng with the user preferences of Kelly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of helping an operator to meet their desired journey goals (see at least Kelly [0018]).
Regarding claim 41 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Zeng discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to;
store data representative of a plurality of speed profiles (see at least [0056]; “The data storage device 32 stores data for use in automatically controlling the autonomous vehicle 10.”).
Zeng does not disclose determine the one or more speed profiles from the plurality of speed profiles based at least on the one or more preferences associated with the ACC system of the ego-machine.
Kelly, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine the one or more speed profiles from the plurality of speed profiles based at least on the one or more preferences associated with the ACC system of the ego-machine (see at least [0508]; “FIG. 30 is an example representation of a population of candidate speed profiles comprising a plurality of initial speed profiles. In this representation, there are four initial speed profiles. However, it will be appreciated that the plurality of initial speed profiles may comprise any number of initial speed profiles that is greater than or equal to two… In Step S2730, the population of candidate speed profiles is evaluated. This may be done by scoring each of the candidate speed profiles against the objective to be achieved at the end of the window and optionally also the journey objective. There are any number of ways to score each of the candidate speed profiles against the objectives (and optionally also the comfort objective), which may depend on the particular implementation of the route guidance module 110 and the nature of the objectives (and comfort objective),” and [0182]; “Selecting one of the plurality of candidate speed profiles to be the target speed profile may further comprise: scoring each of the plurality of candidate speed profiles based on an assessment of the arrival state against the objective; and selecting the candidate speed profile with the highest score to be the target speed profile,” the profiles can be scored based on meeting the objective the objective may be speed related such as within a range of the speed limit, the candidate closest to meeting this objective of the speed, would score the highest. Additionally, the candidates can be scored based on a punctuality preference which determines which velocities of the speed profiles would yield the closest arrival by the preferred time and therefore are the closest to the user inputted first velocity based on user preference).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the speed profile of Zeng with the user preferences of Kelly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of helping an operator to meet their desired journey goals (see at least Kelly [0018]).
Regarding claim 42 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 36. Zeng does not disclose wherein the determination of the future trajectory comprises:
determining one or more scores associated with the one or more future trajectories based at least on the one or more second velocities associated with the one or more future trajectories associated with the ACC system; and
determining, based at least on the one or more scores, the future trajectory of the one or more future trajectories.
Kelly, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the determination of the future trajectory comprises:
determining one or more scores associated with the one or more future trajectories based at least on the one or more second velocities associated with the one or more future trajectories associated with the ACC system (see at least [0509]; “In Step S2730, the population of candidate speed profiles is evaluated. This may be done by scoring each of the candidate speed profiles against the objective to be achieved at the end of the window and optionally also the journey objective. There are any number of ways to score each of the candidate speed profiles against the objectives (and optionally also the comfort objective), which may depend on the particular implementation of the route guidance module 110 and the nature of the objectives (and comfort objective)”); and
determining, based at least on the one or more scores, the future trajectory of the one or more future trajectories (see at least [0540]; “For each speed profile, an overall score can be calculated based on the individual scores for each individual objectives. In this example, the overall score is calculated from the punctuality score and the efficiency score. The overall score may be calculated using a sum of the individual scores, a weighted sum of the individual scores, or by considering a ranking of the individual scores. The speed profile having the highest overall score (or highest ranked overall score) may be selected as the optimized target speed profile.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the speed profile of Zeng with the user preferences of Kelly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of helping an operator to meet their desired journey goals (see at least Kelly [0018]).
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Kelly, as applied to claim 18 above, in view of US-20230080281 (hereinafter, “Kundu,” previously of record).
Regarding claim 25 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Zeng discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to:
determine a point along the future path associated with the ego-machine (see at least fig. 9B; the waypoints correspond to applicant’s points along a future path”).
Zeng does not disclose determine that the point is associated with a lane; and
determine, based at least on the point being associated with the lane, the first future trajectory as navigating within the lane.
Kundu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine that the point is associated with a lane (see at least [0150]; “the system may determine whether the vehicle needs to make lane changes or not, such as based on the next road segments of the current route to the destination,” the road segments are associated with waypoints of the route, and are used to determine whether to switch lanes, based on whether the next road segment (which correlates to waypoint) is associated with a certain lane); and
determine, based at least on the point being associated with the lane, the first future trajectory as navigating within the lane (see at least [0150]; “the system may determine whether the vehicle needs to make lane changes or not, such as based on the next road segments of the current route to the destination. If a lane change is required, the system may decide the direction of the turn on the next” the road segments are associated with waypoints of the route, and are used to determine whether to switch lanes, based on whether the next road segment (which correlates to waypoint) is associated with a different lane, when the road segment is associated with a lane, the vehicle is determined to be desired to navigate within said lane).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control system of Zeng as modified by Kelly with the lane determination of Kundu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of knowing when switching lanes is necessary (see at least Kundu; [150]).
Claim(s) 26 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Kelly, as applied to claim 18 and 28 above, in view of US-20190164430 (hereinafter, “Nix,” previously of record).
Regarding claim 26 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 18. Kundu does not disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further to:
determine, based at least on sensor data obtained using the ego-machine, a motion vector associated with the ego-machine;
determine, based at least on the motion vector, a future path associated with the ego-machine.
Nix, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system and method for driver assistance wherein the system is capable to …determine, based at least on sensor data obtained using the ego-machine, a motion vector associated with the ego-machine (see at least [0075]; “The application may retrieve information gathered by vehicle systems/sensors, input devices (e.g., user interface 318), devices in communication with the in-vehicle computing system (e.g., a mobile device connected via a Bluetooth link), etc. As an example, the information retrieved from the cloud server may be used by the surround view system 370 to determine driving situations as explained with reference to FIG. 2. Specifically, a map database (such as map database 211 of FIG. 2) may be retrieved from the cloud server. Based on the retrieved map database, the surround view system 370 may be able to determine a current location and a heading of the host vehicle”);
determine, based at least on the motion vector, a future path associated with the ego-machine (see at least [0092]; “Likewise, the trajectory of the host vehicle may be computed based on estimating one or more of speed, location, and heading of the host vehicle.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control system of Zeng as modified by Kelly with the motion vector-based path prediction of Nix. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving driving assistance capabilities by more accurately predicting vehicle paths (see at least Nix; [0017]).
Regarding claim 34 Zeng in view of Kelly renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 28. Kundu does not disclose further comprising:
determining, based at least on sensor data obtained using the ego-machine, a motion vector associated with the ego-machine;
determining, based at least on the motion vector, a future path associated with the ego-machine.
Nix, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system and method for driver assistance wherein the system is capable to … determining, based at least on sensor data obtained using the ego-machine, a motion vector associated with the ego-machine; (see at least [0075]; “The application may retrieve information gathered by vehicle systems/sensors, input devices (e.g., user interface 318), devices in communication with the in-vehicle computing system (e.g., a mobile device connected via a Bluetooth link), etc. As an example, the information retrieved from the cloud server may be used by the surround view system 370 to determine driving situations as explained with reference to FIG. 2. Specifically, a map database (such as map database 211 of FIG. 2) may be retrieved from the cloud server. Based on the retrieved map database, the surround view system 370 may be able to determine a current location and a heading of the host vehicle”); and
determining, based at least on the motion vector, the future path associated with the ego-machine (see at least [0092]; “Likewise, the trajectory of the host vehicle may be computed based on estimating one or more of speed, location, and heading of the host vehicle.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control system of Zeng as modified by Kelly with the motion vector-based path prediction of Nix. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving driving assistance capabilities by more accurately predicting vehicle paths (see at least Nix; [0017]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666