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:
Claims 1,5-7, 19-20 are amended.
Claims 2, 4 are cancelled.
Claims 21 and 22 are added.
Claims 1-22 are pending (except cancelled claims 2 and 4).
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 11/21/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Applicant remarks:
Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that Pietro does not teach or suggest the feature “by identifying at least one first reference frame…intersecting the obstacle”. (See pages 7-9)
Office Response:
See the new mapping under 35 U.S.C 103 rejection.
Since the previous rejections maintain for the independent claims, the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached for newly added dependent claims 21 and 22 and considered as FINAL office action. Therefore, Examiner maintains the 35.U.S.C 102 and 103 rejections and repeat the rejections as before with additional citation for the convenience.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5-12, 14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S..C 103 as being unpatentable over Pietro in view of in view of US20200216061 A1 to Zidek (herein after “Zidek”).
Regarding claim 1, Pietro discloses a method for generating an object trajectory, comprising: analyzing, by a processor, sensor data to detect a moving object in an environment and at least one obstacle that the moving object is unable to traverse (see Pietro at least para [0032] by analyzing sensor data generated by at least one sensor device on the AV 102);
generating, by the processor, a definition for a location of the obstacle in the environment in terms of reference frames defined for a lane and edge distances from a first boundary of the lane; (see Pietro paras [0006] cost function representing a distance from the object to a right boundary of the lane, a cost function representing how close the object should follow a center of the lane, a cost function representing location consistencies to the left and right boundaries of the lane, and a cost function representing locations that are close to static obstacles., para[0071], para[0086] For example, a local coordinate frame is defined as having the x-axis as the crossline passing through the point and intersecting the left and right boundaries and the zero of the frame (x=0, y=0) on the intersection between the crossline and the left boundary.)
using, by the processor, the definition to detect when the moving object should or should not veer around the obstacle; (see Pietro para[0026] A reference path is an ideal trajectory through 2D space described by a polyline. It encodes an offset with a lane, trends on how actors take turns, basic contextual interactions (such as veering around static obstacles), Here 2D space axis X is reference frame and Y axis is similar to distance axis )
generating, by the processor, the object trajectory based on a detection of when the moving object should or should not veer around the obstacle (see Pietro para [0026] A reference path is an ideal trajectory through 2D space described by a polyline. It encodes an offset with a lane, trends on how actors take turns, basic contextual interactions (such as veering around static obstacles)); and
performing operations, by the processor, to control a vehicle based on the object trajectory. (see Pietro para [0039] During operations, information is communicated from the sensors to an on-board computing device 220. The on-board computing device 220 analyzes the data captured by the sensors and optionally controls operations of the vehicle based on results of the analysis).
However, Pietro does not expressly disclose and otherwise teach by identifying at least one first reference frame that intersects the obstacle and at least one second reference frame which is closest to the obstacle without intersecting the obstacle. Nevertheless, Zidek same field of endeavor teaches by identifying at least one first reference frame that intersects the obstacle and at least one second reference frame which is closest to the obstacle without intersecting the obstacle (see Zidek paras[0054]-[0055] The points of the polyline that intersect with the obstacle 605 are the points of the line that connect the nodes 520 d and 520 e and pass through the obstacle 605.)
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Pietro’s method and system of generating trajectory by generating a table with Zidek’s intersecting and non-intersecting points (similar as reference frame) in order to allow to generate a optimal path for the vehicle identified in the collision avoidance method. (see Zidek abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Pietro and Zidek remain applied as claim 1. Pietro discloses each said reference frame defines a location in the lane relative to a frame axis extending perpendicular to a distance axis that extends from the first boundary of the lane to a second boundary of the lane (see Pietro para [0026] a reference path is an ideal trajectory through 2D space described by a polyline. Here 2D space axis X is similar to the reference frame and Y axis is similar to distance axis)).
Regarding claim 5, Pietro and Zidek remain applied as claim 1. Pietro discloses generating the definition further comprises: obtaining at least one first distance from the first boundary of the lane to a point on a left edge of the obstacle and at least one second distance from the first boundary of the lane to a point on a right edge of the obstacle; and arranging an identifier for the at least one first reference frame, an identifier for the at least one second reference frame, the at least one first distance and the at least one second distance to provide the definition ( see Pietro para [0098] The right side cost functions are defined by following mathematical equations (15) and (16). [Image Omitted] where L represents a left lane boundary, R represents a right lane boundary, M represents the moving object’s current position, D L_R represents a distance between the right lane boundary and the left lane boundary).
Regarding claim 6, Pietro and Zidek remain applied as claim 1. Pietro discloses generating the definition further comprises: obtaining a first distance from the first boundary of the lane to a first corner of the obstacle, a second distance from the first boundary of the lane to a second corner of the obstacle, a third distance from the first boundary of the lane to a third corner of the obstacle, and a fourth distance from the first boundary of the lane to a fourth corner of the obstacle; and arranging an identifier of the at least one first reference frame, an identifier of the at least one second reference frame, the first distance, the second distance, the third distance and the fourth distance to provide the definition (see Pietro para[ 0006] In those or other scenarios, the cost curves are generated using at least one of a cost function representing a distance from the object to a left boundary of the lane, a cost function representing a distance from the object to a right boundary of the lane); para [0098] Equation (15) and (16)).
Regarding claim 7, Pietro and Zidek remain applied as claim 1. Pietro discloses generating the definition further comprises: obtaining a minimum distance from the first boundary of the lane to a left side of the obstacle and a maximum distance from the first boundary of the lane to a right side of the obstacle; and arranging an identifier of the at least one first reference frame, an identifier of the at least one second reference frame, the minimum distance and the maximum distance to provide the definition (see Pietro figure 10 and para [0074]).
Regarding claim 8, Pietro and Zidek remain applied as claim 1. Pietro discloses generating the definition comprises using a 2D rectangle encompassing the obstacle and at least one other obstacle in the environment, the obstacle and at least one other obstacle being sequentially arranged in terms of reference frames, associated with two same consecutive reference frames, and overlapped in terms of distance from the first boundary( See Pietro para [0026 A reference path is an ideal trajectory through 2D space described by a polyline; cost curve in Pietro is equivalent to definition in recent application).
Regarding claim 9, Pietro and Zidek remain applied as claim 1. Pietro discloses comprising obtaining the edge distances using a distance axis with an origin that is aligned with the first boundary of the lane and has a variable location on the distance axis when the first boundary of the lane curves or bends ( see Pietro steps 614 and 616 in figure 6).
Regarding claim 10, Pietro and Zidek remain applied as claim 1. Pietro discloses a classification of the obstacle is used by the processor in addition to the definition to detect when the moving object should or should not veer around the obstacle( see Pietro para [para 0050] The track (or spatial description) may comprise at least one predicted trajectory or path of travel of the object, a speed of the object, a full extent of the object, a heading of the object, a direction of travel of the object, and/or a classification of the object).
Regarding claim 11, Pietro and Zidek remain applied as claim 1. Pietro discloses a detection is made that the moving object should veer around the obstacle when at least a portion of the moving object and at least a portion of the obstacle are a same distance from the first boundary of the lane ( See Pietro step 618 in figure 6).
Regarding claim 12, Pietro and Zidek remain applied as claim 1. Pietro discloses wherein a detection is made that the moving object should veer around the obstacle when a difference is less than a threshold, the difference being between a distance from the first boundary of the lane to a side of the moving object that is farthest from the first boundary and a distance from the first boundary of the lane to a side of the obstacle that is closest to the first boundary (see Pietro para[0052] such a technique involves determining a trajectory for the AV that would pass the object when the object is in front of the AV, the object has a heading direction that is aligned with the direction in which the AV is moving, and the object has a length that is greater than a threshold value).
Regarding claim 14, Pietro and Zidek remain applied as claim 1. Pietro discloses further comprising using the definition to obtain a veering direction for the moving object (see Pietro para [0028] by using a set of cost functions to generate the reference paths of travel for the detected object).
Regarding claim 17, Pietro and Zidek remain applied as claim 1. Pietro discloses further comprising identifying a free space around the obstacle through which the moving object is able to traverse (see Pietro para[0080] cost function keeps the moving object far from the static objects while adding little cost to the free space).
Regarding claim 18, Pietro and Zidek remain applied as claim 1. Pietro discloses further comprising changing the veering direction based on the free space which was identified (see Pietro para[0080] for the flowchart to identify the free space for implementing the cost function).
Regarding claim 19, Pietro discloses a system, comprising (see Pietro para[0002] The present disclosure relates generally to vehicles. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to implementing systems and methods for vehicle motion planning.): a memory (See Pietro para[0021] An “electronic device” or a “computing device” refers to a device that includes a processor and memory. ); and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to (see Pietro para [0021] An “electronic device” or a “computing device” refers to a device that includes a processor and memory. , para[0023] The terms “processor” and “processing device” refer to a hardware component of an electronic device that is configured to execute programming instructions. Except where specifically stated otherwise, the singular term “processor” or “processing device” is intended to include both single-processing device embodiments and embodiments in which multiple processing devices together or collectively perform a process.): analyze sensor data to detect a moving object in an environment and at least one obstacle that the moving object is unable to traverse (see Pietro para[0032] This object detection can be made, for example, by analyzing sensor data generated by at least one sensor device on the AV 1021 and/or information received from a communication device); generate a definition for a location of the obstacle in the environment in terms of reference frames defined for a lane and edge distances from a first boundary of the lane (see Pietro para[0073] o represents a displacement between the object’s current location and the x-axis.);
use the definition to detect when the moving object should or should not veer around the obstacle; and generate the possible object trajectory based on a detection of when the object should or should not veer around the obstacle (see Pietro para [0008] The implementing systems comprise: a processor; and a non-transitory computer- readable storage medium comprising programming instructions that are configured to cause the processor to implement the above described methods)
and perform operations to control a vehicle based on the object trajectory ((see Pietro para [0039] During operations, information is communicated from the sensors to an on-board computing device 220. The on-board computing device 220 analyzes the data captured by the sensors and optionally controls operations of the vehicle based on results of the analysis).
However, Pietro does not expressly disclose and otherwise teach by identifying at least one first reference frame that intersects the obstacle and at least one second reference frame which is closest to the obstacle without intersecting the obstacle. Nevertheless, Zidek same field of endeavor teaches by identifying at least one first reference frame that intersects the obstacle and at least one second reference frame which is closest to the obstacle without intersecting the obstacle (see Zidek paras[0054]-[0055] The points of the polyline that intersect with the obstacle 605 are the points of the line that connect the nodes 520 d and 520 e and pass through the obstacle 605.)
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Pietro’s method and system of generating trajectory by generating a table with Zidek’s intersecting and non-intersecting points (similar as reference frame) in order to allow to generate a optimal path for the vehicle identified in the collision avoidance method. (see Zidek abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Pietro discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions that is configured to, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising: analyzing sensor data to detect a moving object in an environment and at least one obstacle that the moving object is unable to traverse (see Pietro para [0047] At least some of the hardware entities 314 perform actions involving access to and use of memory 312, which can be a Random Access Memory (RAM), a disk drive, flash memory, a Compact Disc Read Only Memory (CD-ROM) and/or another hardware device that is capable of storing instructions and data. Hardware entities 314 can include a disk drive unit 316 comprising a computer-readable storage medium 318); generating a definition for a location of the obstacle in the environment in terms of reference frames defined for a lane and edge distances from a first boundary of the lane;
using the definition to detect when the moving object should or should not veer around the obstacle; and generating the possible object trajectory based on a detection of when the object should or should not veer around the obstacle(see Pietro para [0008] The implementing systems comprise: a processor; and a non-transitory computer- readable storage medium comprising programming instructions that are configured to cause the processor to implement the above described methods)
and perform operations to control a vehicle based on the object trajectory ((see Pietro para [0039] During operations, information is communicated from the sensors to an on-board computing device 220. The on-board computing device 220 analyzes the data captured by the sensors and optionally controls operations of the vehicle based on results of the analysis).
However, Pietro does not expressly disclose and otherwise teach by identifying at least one first reference frame that intersects the obstacle and at least one second reference frame which is closest to the obstacle without intersecting the obstacle. Nevertheless, Zidek same field of endeavor teaches by identifying at least one first reference frame that intersects the obstacle and at least one second reference frame which is closest to the obstacle without intersecting the obstacle (see Zidek paras[0054]-[0055] The points of the polyline that intersect with the obstacle 605 are the points of the line that connect the nodes 520 d and 520 e and pass through the obstacle 605.)
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Pietro’s method and system of generating trajectory by generating a table with Zidek’s intersecting and non-intersecting points (similar as reference frame) in order to allow to generate a optimal path for the vehicle identified in the collision avoidance method. (see Zidek abstract).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S..C 103 as being unpatentable over Pietro in view of Zidek and US20200389761A1 to Rao et al. (herein after “Rao”).
Regarding claim 13, Pietro and Zidek remain applied as claim 1. Pietro discloses a system and method for generating trajectory to control vehicle (see Pietro para [0032], [0004], [0026] and [0008]). However, Pietro doesn’t teach building a table showing definition and a classification of the obstacle. Nevertheless, Rao same field of endeavor teaches further comprising building a table in which the definition and a classification of the obstacle are indexed by an identifier for the lane, wherein the classification of the obstacle is at least one of: parked, yielding, lane blocking and construction. (see Rao Figure 3A, 3B).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Pietro’s method and system of generating trajectory by generating a table with Rao’s table of organizing the results by the classification of the obstacle (parked, yielding, lane blocking and construction) (see para[0048]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S..C 103 as being unpatentable over Pietro in view of Zidek and US11535271 to McAlister et al. (herein after “McAlister”).
Regarding claim 15, Pietro and Zidek remain applied as claim 1. Pietro discloses a system and method for generating trajectory to control vehicle (see Pietro para [0032], [0004], [0026] and [0008]). However, Pietro doesn’t teach the veering is right when right edge of obstacle is closer to the moving object and vice versa. Nevertheless McAlister same field of endeavor teaches the moving vehicle turn right when the parked vehicle’s (obstacle) right edge is close to the moving vehicle (see McAlister figure 9, parked vehicle (obstacle) left side is closer to the vehicle’s , the vehicle 10 veering around ta parked car traveling along a trajectory 910) .
It would have been obvious to one if ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Pietro method and system of generating trajectory with McAlister’s veering direction around a parked car to to determine whether motion of the vehicle indicates that either: (a) the vehicle is traveling in a wrong-way direction for its lane; or (b) the vehicle is within a minimum stopping distance to an imminent TCM in its lane. (See McAlister Abstract).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S..C 103 as being unpatentable over Pietro in view of Zidek and Miao et al. (Intelligent vehicle obstacle avoidance path-tracking control based on adaptive model predictive control, Articles Volume 14, issue 1 MS, 14, 247–258, 2023 (Year: 2023)), (herein after “Miao”).
Regarding claim 16, Pietro and Zidek remain applied as claim 1. Pietro discloses a system and method for generating trajectory to control vehicle (see Pietro para [0032], [0004], [0026] and [0008]). However, Pietro doesn’t teach the veering direction is right when the right and left edge of the obstacle is equidistance to moving object and vice versa. Nevertheless, Miao same field of endeavor teaches wherein the veering direction is right when left and right edges of the obstacle are equidistant to the moving object and the moving object is located to a left side of the lane, and is left when the left and right edges of the obstacle are equidistant to the moving object and the moving object is located to a right side of the lane (see Miao figure 4, vehicle safety collision distance model).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one if ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Pietro method and system of generating trajectory with Miao’s vehicle safety collision distance model to avoid collision based on adaptive model predictive control (See Miao’s Abstract).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S..C 103 as being unpatentable over Pietro in view of Zidek and CN111283688A to Lai et al. (herein after “Lai”).
Regarding claim 21, Pietro and Zidek remain applied as claim 1. However, Pietro doesn’t expressly teach or otherwise discloses wherein the definition is defined between two second reference frames each being closest to an end of the obstacle. Nevertheless, Lai same field of endeavor teaches wherein the definition is defined between two second reference frames each being closest to an end of the obstacle (See Lai figure 6 [0069] In one specific implementation, referring to Figure 6, the two intersection points of the straight line connecting the starting point and the target object with the outer rectangle of the obstacle are respectively designated as the first control point A and the second control point B; the vertex among the four vertices of the outer rectangle of the obstacle that is closest to the first control point A and the second control point B is designated as the third control point C; and a NURBS curve (non-uniform rational B-spline curve) is generated based on the first control point A, the second control point B, and the third control point C.).
It would have been obvious to one if ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Pietro method and system of generating trajectory with Lai’s closest control points (reference frame) to define the obstacle in order to allow to enable robots to avoid obstacles more effectively (see Lai para[0007]).
Regarding claim 22, Pietro, Zidek and Lai remain applied as claim 21. However, Pietro doesn’t expressly teach or otherwise discloses the one of the two second reference frames is in a first distance from a first end of the obstacle, and another of the two second reference frames is in a second distance from a second end of the obstacle, the first distance being longer and the second distance. Nevertheless, Lai same field of endeavor teaches the one of the two second reference frames is in a first distance from a first end of the obstacle, and another of the two second reference frames is in a second distance from a second end of the obstacle, the first distance being longer and the second distance (See Lai figure 6,para[0069]).
It would have been obvious to one if ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Pietro method and system of generating trajectory with Lai’s closest control points (reference frame) to define the obstacle in order to allow to enable robots to avoid obstacles more effectively (see Lai para[0007]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NAZIA AFRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-6.
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, Scott A Browne can be reached at 5712700151. 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.
/NAZIA AFRIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666