Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on November 25, 2025 amends claims 1, 15, 17, and 20 and cancels claims 16 and 19. Claims 1-9, 11-15, 17, and 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 25, 2025 regarding the newly presented claim limitations have been fully considered and are unpersuasive and/or moot as shown in the rejections that follow. The newly presented claim limitations, which necessitate a new ground of rejection, are taught by the previously cited reference, Gariepy. While not relied on, newly cited reference, KR 102359497 B1, also teaches the newly presented limitations as shown in the rejections that follow.
In the Remarks, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s remarks that the Examiner has failed to show that the cited references teach or suggest “one or more user inputs are received to redraw the proposed trajectory to generate a redrawn trajectory that satisfies the one or more constraints” and “in response to the verification of the redrawn trajectory being successful, transmitting the redrawn trajectory to the motion planner of vehicle” as recited in newly amended independent claims 1, 17 and 20. Examiner notes that the Examiner has shown a teaching of each of independent claims 1, 17, and 20 that were previously presented. Examiner will show a teaching of amended claims 1, 17, and 20 as explained in detail in the rejections that follow.
Applicant further alleges that “the Examiner cites Gariepy as teaching ‘fleet management system 120 can receive the operating data and update the electronic map, as necessary and that in the case that the identified object is obstructing the operation of the self-driving vehicles 110, the fleet management system 120 can transmit updated navigation commands to the self-driving vehicles 110 to guide the self-driving vehicles 110 around the object.’” In response, the Examiner notes that Gariepy was used to show a teaching of various features recited in claims 1, 17, and 20 as well as dependent claims 16 and 19. While the Applicant alleges that “the Examiner simply identifies system-driven updates obtained "from the self-driving vehicles," not user inputs that redraw the trajectory and that “system-driven updates do not teach or suggest user inputs”, Examiner notes that Gariepy at [0149] also teaches updating an electronic map and transmitting updated navigation commands which correspond to redrawing a proposed trajectory to generate a redrawn trajectory. Examiner shows a teaching of receiving, by the at least one data processor, one or more user inputs using Gariepy at [0181], for example. Examiner directs the Applicant to Examiner’s previous response to claim 1 in which Examiner referenced Gariepy, at [0181] for example, which discloses that the vehicle processor 212 may receive a mission from the fleet management system 120 which requires the vehicle to navigate in either a fixed path mode or a free form mode resulting from the nature of the mission or the location where the mission is being carried out that the input may include direct user interaction with the vehicle, in which a user activates a button or switch to prompt the vehicle to change navigation modes. Examiner notes that changing navigation modes by way of a user prompt or input such that navigation may occur in either a fixed path mode or a free form mode, for example, corresponds to one or more inputs being received to redraw the proposed trajectory to generate a redrawn trajectory that satisfies one or more constraints.
Applicant further argues that the Examiner relies on “updated navigation commands” as teaching “transmitting the redrawn trajectory to the motion planner of vehicle” as recited in each of the newly amended independent claims. With respect to this foregoing limitation, the Examiner notes that Gariepy at [0149] discloses that transmitting updated navigation commands to self-driving vehicles to guide the self-driving vehicles corresponds to the transmission of a redrawn trajectory because an updated navigation command would alter the trajectory of the vehicle causing the trajectory to be redrawn. Examiner showed that Gariepy at [0006], discloses that a vehicle includes a vehicle processor. Examiner had previously mapped vehicle processor to the motion planner. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Gariepy.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of independent claims 1, 17, and 20, all instances of “of vehicle” should be changed to “of the vehicle”.
The foregoing changes are required to correct antecedent basis, clerical and/or grammatical errors.
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.
Claims 1, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Each of claims 1, 17, and 20 have antecedent basis issues with respect to the term “one or more user inputs”. For each of the first and second clauses of independent claims 1 and 20, it is unclear whether the same one or more user inputs define a proposed trajectory and redraw the proposed trajectory. In other words, it is unclear whether “one of more user inputs” in the second clause is referring to the same “one or more user inputs” in the first clause of independent claims 1 and 20 or is referring to an additional or another set of one or more user inputs. If an additional set of one or more user inputs are input, then Applicant is advised to include verbiage such as “first set of one or more user inputs” and “second set one or more user inputs”, in the first and second clauses, respectively, for example. Otherwise, the second instance of “one or more user inputs” in each of the second clauses should be changed to “the one or more user inputs”. Likewise, similar changes should be made to independent claim 17 to address the same type of antecedent basis issues regarding the term “one or more user inputs”. For the sake of examination, the Examiner will interpret the second instance of “one or more user inputs” in each of these claims as “a second set one or more user inputs”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Gariepy et al. (US 2022/0073062).
Regarding claim 1, Gariepy teaches a method, comprising: receiving, by at least one data processor, one or more user inputs defining a proposed trajectory for a vehicle; (see Gariepy at Figure 1 which depicts a fleet management system 120 in communication with vehicles 110; see Gariepy at [0006] which discloses that a vehicle includes a vehicle processor; see Gariepy, at [0007] which discloses that the prospective vehicle navigation mode can include a fixed path mode in which the vehicle follows guiding infrastructure installed in the operating environment; see Gariepy at [0012] in conjunction with Figure 1, which discloses receiving, via a vehicle communication interface coupled to the vehicle processor, a command to follow guiding infrastructure from a fleet management system; see Gariepy at [0146] which further discloses that the communication component of the fleet management system can include any interface that enables the fleet management system 120 and that the communication component may receive input from various input devices, such as a mouse, a keyboard, a touch screen, etc. Examiner notes that a command to follow guiding infrastructure may be received from a fleet management system via a communication component or interface that receives input from a user from various input devices. Examiner further notes that a mouse or keyboard, for example, may be used to provide one or more user inputs, such as a command to following guiding infrastructure or a proposed trajectory. Also, see Gariepy at [0014] which discloses that in some embodiments, the prospective vehicle navigation mode can include a free form mode of operation in which the vehicle follows a virtual line path defined in an electronic map of the operating environment. Further, see Gariepy at [0181] which discloses that the vehicle processor 212 may receive a mission from the fleet management system 120 which requires the vehicle to navigate in either a fixed path mode or a free form mode resulting from the nature of the mission or the location where the mission is being carried out, that in other cases, the event may be an input into the vehicle, and that for example, the input may include direct user interaction with the vehicle, in which a user activates a button or switch to prompt the vehicle to change navigation modes. Examiner maps fixed path or free form to proposed trajectory. Examiner notes inputting via user interaction, such as either a fixed path mode or a free form mode, by way of activating a button or switch, may correspond to a user input defining a proposed trajectory. Alternatively, Examiner may map a command to follow guiding infrastructure from the fleet management system to receiving one or more user inputs defining a proposed trajectory for a vehicle. Examiner may also map virtual line path to the proposed trajectory. Examiner shows a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
determining, by the at least one data processor, one or more constraints imposed by a motion planner of the vehicle based on map data and data associated with classifications of physical objects in an environment along the proposed trajectory, wherein one or more user inputs are received to redraw the proposed trajectory to generate a redrawn trajectory that satisfies the one or more constraints; (see Gariepy at [0006] which discloses that the method involves operating the vehicle processor to: control the vehicle to navigate an operating environment in an initial vehicle navigation mode; monitor for one or more trigger conditions indicating a possible change for the vehicle navigation mode. Also, see Gariepy at [0023] which discloses that the vehicle can further include at least one detection sensor for monitoring objects surrounding the vehicle; Examiner notes that objects surrounding the vehicle corresponds to objects in an environment of the vehicle. Also, see Gariepy at [0076] which discloses a vehicle processor for determining locations of vehicle using vehicle localization methods and determining whether the vehicle location is within a pre-defined zone, and adjusting at least one vehicle operating attribute to correspond to a corresponding zone-specific vehicle attribute; see Gariepy at [0084-0085] which discloses that in some embodiments, the vehicle processor can include a first vehicle processor being coupled to the at least one first sensor, and a second vehicle processor being coupled to the at least one second sensor, and the method can further involve operating the first vehicle processor to: based on first sensor data generated by the at least one first sensor, determine the first location; and based on second sensor data generated by the at least one second sensor, determine the second location, and that the method can further involve operating the vehicle processor to: determine whether the vehicle location is within a pre-defined zone; and in response to the determining that the vehicle location is not within a pre-defined zone, continue operating the vehicle using initial vehicle operating attributes; Gariepy at [0087] which further discloses that in some embodiments, the pre-defined zone is a pedestrian-exclusion zone, for example; see Gariepy at [0088] which discloses that in some embodiments, the pre-defined zone is a high traffic pedestrian zone; further see Gariepy at [0095] which discloses that in some embodiments, the vehicle processor is further operable to: determine whether the vehicle location is within a pre-defined zone; and in response to the determining that the vehicle location is not within a pre-defined zone, continue operating the vehicle with initial vehicle operating attributes. Also, see Gariepy at [0137] which discloses that in the course of navigating, the self-driving vehicle may be required to avoid obstacles (e.g., objects or pedestrians) along the traveling path; see Gariepy at [0148] which discloses that destination locations, in some embodiments, can be identified with respect to known objects or landmarks within the operating environment of the self-driving vehicles 110; see Gariepy at [0151] in conjunction with Fig. 2 which discloses that the self-driving vehicle 110 can include a vehicle processor 212, a vehicle data storage 214, a communication component 216, a sensing system 220, and a drive system 230, that components 212, 214, 216, 220, and 230 are illustrated separately in FIG. 2, for ease of exposition, that in some embodiments, one or more of the components 212, 214, 216, 220, and 230 can be combined into fewer components, or separated into further components and that in some embodiments, parts of a component can be combined with another part of another component; see Gariepy at [0152] which further discloses that the vehicle processor 212 can include any suitable processor, controller or digital signal processor that can provide sufficient processing power depending on the configuration, purposes and requirements of the self-driving vehicle 110, that in some embodiments, the vehicle processor 212 can include more than one processor with each processor being configured to perform different dedicated tasks; see Gariepy at [0153] which discloses that the vehicle processor 212 can operate the vehicle data storage 214, the communication component 216, the sensing system 220, and the drive system 230, that for example, the vehicle processor 212 can operate the drive system 230 to navigate to the waypoints or destination location as identified by the fleet management system 120, and that the operation of the vehicle processor 212 can be based on data collected from the vehicle data storage 214, the communication component 216, the sensing system 220, and/or the drive system 230, in some embodiments. Also, see Gariepy at [0247] which discloses that zones may be pre-defined having regard to types of objects (e.g., fragile objects) located within the zone, that for instance, areas in a facility which have a large number of sensitive objects may be bounded by special zones requiring the vehicle to operate using larger detection ranges and/or lower travelling speeds. Examiner notes that using sensor data to determine whether the vehicle location is within a pre-defined zone corresponds to the one or more constraints. Based on what Gariepy teaches, the Examiner maps any type of object, such as pedestrians or fragile objects or landmarks, for example, to the classifications of physical objects in an environment of the vehicle. On the other hand, the specification, at [0062], discloses that physical objects may include pedestrians and/or the like. Thus, Gariepy further teaches the classification of objects by determining the types of objects (i.e., whether an object is a pedestrian or a fragile object or a landmark, for example) in a pre-defined zone. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the vehicle processor may be used to operate the drive system to navigate the vehicle to waypoints or destination locations. Examiner maps vehicle processor to the motion planner.
Further, Gariepy, at [0181] for example, which discloses that an event may also act as a trigger condition and that the vehicle processor 212 may receive a mission from the fleet management system 120 which requires the vehicle to navigate in either a fixed path mode or a free form mode resulting from the nature of the mission or the location where the mission is being carried out and that the input may include direct user interaction with the vehicle, in which a user activates a button or switch to prompt the vehicle to change navigation modes. Examiner notes that changing navigation modes by way of a user prompt or input such that navigation may occur in either a fixed path mode or a free form mode, for example, or any of the other modes disclosed by Gariepy (see Gariepy at [0173]), corresponds to one or more inputs being received to redraw the proposed trajectory to generate a redrawn trajectory that satisfies one or more constraints. Examiner notes that changing navigation modes throughout the mission via input including direct user interaction based on an event that causes a trigger condition corresponds to a redrawing of the proposed trajectory using a second or additional set of user inputs. Examiner maps nature of the mission and/or location where the mission is being carried out to the one or more constraints, for example. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of what is written in the specification.)
performing, by the at least one data processor, a verification of the redrawn trajectory to determine whether the redrawn trajectory satisfies the one or more constraints, wherein a verified redrawn trajectory maintains a minimum clearance from the physical objects and is located within a drivable surface according to the map data; in response to the verification of the redrawn trajectory being unsuccessful, preventing, by the at least one data processor, the redrawn trajectory from being sent to the motion planner of vehicle and in response to the verification of the redrawn trajectory being successful, transmitting the redrawn trajectory to the motion planner of vehicle (see Gariepy at [0095-0096] which discloses that in some embodiments, the vehicle processor is further operable to: determine whether the vehicle location is within a pre-defined zone; and in response to the determining that the vehicle location is not within a pre-defined zone, continue operating the vehicle with initial vehicle operating attributes. Examiner noted that a vehicle processor may determine whether the vehicle the vehicle is in a pre-defined zone, such as a pedestrian exclusion zone or a high pedestrian traffic zone, for example. Examiner previously mapped the nature of the mission and/or location where the mission is being carried out to the one or more constraints, for example. Examiner further notes that determining whether the vehicle location is within a pre-defined zone (i.e., location) corresponds to satisfying one or more constraints. Furthermore, see Gariepy at [0102] and at [0112] which discloses detecting, based on sensor data generated by the at least one sensor, a separation distance between the vehicle and the at least one of a pedestrian or a surrounding object identified by the proximity indicia; and determine that the separation distance is less than a pre-determined distance threshold. Furthermore, see Gariepy at [0114] which discloses determining if the trigger condition is satisfied can include the vehicle processor being further operable to: determine that a vehicle travelling path intersects the at least one of a pedestrian or a surrounding object. Examiner notes that determining whether the vehicle location is within a pre-defined zone and determining that a vehicle travelling path intersects the at least one of a pedestrian or a surrounding object corresponds to verification of the proposed trajectory. Examiner notes that a travelling path (or a path which can be travelled on) corresponds to a drivable surface. Examiner notes that detecting a separation distance between the vehicle and the at least one of a pedestrian or a surrounding object corresponds to wherein a verified proposed trajectory maintains a minimum clearance from the object and is located within a drivable surface according to the map data. Further, see Gariepy at [0147] which discloses that the fleet management system 120 can generate and transmit navigational commands to the self-driving vehicles 110, that the navigational commands can direct the self-driving vehicles 110 to navigate to one or more waypoints or destination locations located within the operating environment of the self-driving vehicles 110. Also, see Gariepy at [0149] which discloses that the fleet management system 120 can receive the operating data and update the electronic map, as necessary and that the fleet management system 120 can transmit updated navigation commands to the self-driving vehicles 110 to guide the self-driving vehicles 110. Examiner further notes that operating the vehicle with initial vehicle operating attributes and not updating the trajectory by way of a command from the fleet management system corresponds to preventing the proposed trajectory from being sent to the motion planner of vehicle. On the other hand, the transmission of updated navigation commands corresponds to transmitting the redrawn trajectory to the motion planner of the vehicle. Examiner further notes that one of the updated navigation commands would include data that redraws the vehicle’s trajectory, because the updated navigation would change the trajectory of the vehicle. Examiner has interpreted the claimed language based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
and generating control signals to autonomously operate the vehicle in accordance with a verified redrawn trajectory (see Gariepy at [0024] which discloses that in some embodiments, adjusting one or more vehicle attributes can involve controlling a vehicle drive system to increase a travelling speed of the vehicle; see Gariepy at [0048] which discloses that the at least one vehicle sensor and that the vehicle processor being operable to: control the vehicle, using input data from the at least one vehicle sensor, to follow guiding infrastructure; see Gariepy at [0095] which discloses that in some embodiments, the vehicle processor is further operable to: determine whether the vehicle location is within a pre-defined zone; and in response to the determining that the vehicle location is not within a pre-defined zone, continue operating the vehicle with an initial vehicle operating attributes; see Gariepy at [0096] which discloses that the method involves operating the vehicle processor to: control the vehicle to navigate an operating environment; see Gariepy at [0137] which discloses that in the course of navigating, the self-driving vehicle may be required to avoid obstacles (e.g., objects or pedestrians) along the vehicle traveling path. Examiner notes that a self-driving vehicle corresponds to a vehicle that autonomously operates with the verified redrawn trajectory. Also, see Gariepy at [0149] which discloses that the fleet management system 120 can receive the operating data and update the electronic map, as necessary and that the fleet management system 120 can transmit updated navigation commands to the self-driving vehicles 110 to guide the self-driving vehicles 110; also, see Gariepy at [0177] which discloses that a trigger condition can also include detecting indicators in the operating environment, indicating that the vehicle should change its navigation mode, that the indicators may include both physical and non-physical indicators, and that physical indicators can include, for example, objects in the environment; Gariepy at [0177] further discloses that non-physical indicators may include detected signals, including specific frequency signals emitted by beacons 308 or a fleet management system 120 (e.g., command signals from the fleet management system), or optical signals which indicate that the vehicle should change its navigation mode. Examiner maps traveling path to trajectory. Examiner maps one of the command signals and/or updated navigation commands to generating the control signals to autonomously operate the vehicle in accordance with a verified redrawn trajectory.)
Regarding claim 2, Gariepy teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a user interface configured to receive the one or more user inputs defining the proposed trajectory for the vehicle (see Gariepy at [0012] in conjunction with Figure 1, which discloses receiving, via a vehicle communication interface coupled to the vehicle processor, a command to follow guiding infrastructure from a fleet management system; or see Gariepy at [0146] which further discloses that the communication component of the fleet management system may receive input from various input devices, such as a mouse, a keyboard, a touch screen, etc.)
Regarding claim 3, Gariepy teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the user interface is generated to include one or more indicators corresponding to the one or more constraints imposed by the motion planner of the vehicle (see Gariepy at [0079] which discloses that in some embodiments, the pre-defined zones are defined in an electronic map accessible to the vehicle processor; Examiner notes that an electronic map provides one or more indicators regarding the pre-defined zones which may be displayed via a vehicle communication interface.)
Regarding claim 4, Gariepy teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the one or more indicators include a visual indication of one or more zones in which to draw a valid path (see Gariepy at [0079] which discloses that in some embodiments, the pre-defined zones are defined in an electronic map accessible to the vehicle processor; Examiner notes that an electronic map may be used to provide a visual indication of the one or more zones in which to draw a valid path.)
Regarding claim 5, Gariepy teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the one or more zones in which to draw the valid path are determined based on one or more maximums or minimums associated with the one or more constraints imposed by the motion planner of the vehicle (see Gariepy at [0077-0078] which discloses various pre-defined zones such as a pedestrian-exclusion zone or a high traffic pedestrian zone and that an increased vehicle traveling speed is associated with a pedestrian-exclusion zone while that of a decreased vehicle traveling speed is associated with a high traffic pedestrian zone; Examiner maps increased vehicle traveling speed to a maximum of the two travel speeds and decreased traveling speed to a minimum of the two travel speeds. Examiner notes that configuring vehicular travel over pedestrian-exclusion zones corresponds to drawing the valid path based on one or more maximums or minimums associated with the one or more constraints.)
Regarding claim 6, Gariepy teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the one or more zones in which to draw the valid path are determined based on at least one of a minimum turning radius of the vehicle, a minimum clearance from one or more objects in a surrounding environment of the vehicle, and a minimum clearance from a lane boundary (see Gariepy at [0102] which discloses that in some embodiments, determining if the trigger condition is satisfied can involve operating the vehicle processor to: detect, based on sensor data generated by the at least one sensor, a separation distance between the vehicle and the at least one of a pedestrian or a surrounding object identified by the proximity indicia; and determine that the separation distance between the vehicle and a surrounding object is less than a pre-determined distance threshold. Examiner maps the separation distance between the vehicle and a surrounding object being less than a pre-determined distance threshold to minimum clearance from one or more objects in a surrounding environment of the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 9, Gariepy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more user inputs define the proposed trajectory by at least specifying one or more nodes or segments forming the proposed trajectory (see Gariepy at [0072] which discloses that adding the representation into the electronic map, can involve adding one or more graph nodes into the electronic map corresponding to the detected guiding infrastructure.)
Regarding claim 11, Gariepy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more constraints include that the proposed trajectory does not collide with one or more objects present in a surrounding environment of the vehicle (see Gariepy at [0158] which discloses that the information captured by the sensing system 220 can be applied for various purposes, such as localization, navigation, mapping and/or collision avoidance. See Gariepy at [0241] which discloses that the extracted line segment data from updated electronic maps may also assist vehicles which are not operating in a fixed path mode, that for example, in FIG. 3, a vehicle 110b approaching guiding infrastructure may rely on the updated electronic map to proactively anticipate the guiding infrastructure, and that accordingly, the vehicle 110b may slow down on approach and may direct its sensing attention along the line to detect any approaching vehicles (e.g., vehicle 110a), and otherwise avoid a potential collision.)
Regarding claim 12, Gariepy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more constraints imposed by the motion planner of the vehicle are determined based on a map received from the vehicle (see Gariepy at [0157] which discloses that the vehicle processor 212 can update an electronic map stored in the vehicle data storage 214.)
Regarding claim 13, Gariepy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more constraints imposed by the motion planner of the vehicle are determined based on a location of one or more objects tracked by the vehicle (see Gariepy at [0102] which discloses that in some embodiments, determining if the trigger condition is satisfied can involve operating the vehicle processor to: detect, based on sensor data generated by the at least one sensor, a separation distance between the vehicle and the at least one of a pedestrian or a surrounding object identified by the proximity indicia; and determine that the separation distance between the vehicle and a surrounding object is less than a pre-determined distance threshold. Examiner maps the proximity indicia to the one or more constraints imposed by the motion planner of the vehicle are determined based on a location of one or more objects tracked by the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 14, Gariepy teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to the verification of the proposed trajectory being successful, sending, by the at least one data processor, the proposed trajectory to the motion planner of the vehicle (see Gariepy at [0149] which discloses that the fleet management system 120 can receive the operating data and update the electronic map, as necessary and that in the case that the identified object is obstructing the operation of the self-driving vehicles 110, the fleet management system 120 can transmit updated navigation commands to the self-driving vehicles 110 to guide the self-driving vehicles 110 around the object. Examiner notes that the fleet management system facilitates a successful proposed trajectory, by way of updating, transmitting, or sending commands to navigate or guide the vehicles around the object.)
Regarding claim 15, Gariepy teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to the verification of the proposed trajectory being unsuccessful, generating, by the at least one data processor, a notification to redraw the proposed trajectory (see Gariepy at [0149] which discloses that the fleet management system 120 can receive the operating data and update the electronic map, as necessary and that in the case that the identified object is obstructing the operation of the self-driving vehicles 110, the fleet management system 120 can transmit updated navigation commands to the self-driving vehicles 110 to guide the self-driving vehicles 110 around the object. Examiner notes that the fleet management system facilitates an update of the electronic map or redrawing of the proposed trajectory in the event an object obstructs the operation of the vehicles. Examiner maps the updating of the electronic map to the notification.)
Independent claim 17 is directed toward a system that performs the steps recited in the method of claim 1. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the corresponding limitations recited in claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Independent claim 20 is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium that performs the steps recited in the method of claim 1. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the corresponding limitations recited in claim 20. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
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 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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gariepy et al. (US 2022/0073062) in view of Nomura (US 2006/0116815).
Regarding claim 7, Gariepy does not expressly disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the one or more indicators include a visual indication of a cost associated with the proposed trajectory, and wherein the cost of the proposed trajectory corresponds to a magnitude of deviation from the one or more constraints imposed by the motion planner of the vehicle which, in a related art, Nomura teaches (see Nomura at [0036] which discloses that a route whose cost is minimum among routes from the starting position to the destination is automatically retrieved and a guided route is computed to be displayed on the display device 10; see Nomura at claim 1, which discloses a guiding unit for guiding the vehicle to the destination along the retrieved route; a determining unit for determining based on the current position whether the vehicle travels the retrieved route; a deviation route storing unit for storing (i) a deviation route that the vehicle travels after deviating from the retrieved route, (ii) a deviating position at which the vehicle deviates from the retrieved route to the deviation route and (iii) a returning position at which the vehicle comes back from the deviation route to the retrieved route, when the vehicle is determined to travel the deviation route; Examiner notes that the displaying of the minimum cost route on a display corresponds to a visual indication of the minimum cost, when displayed on a display. Examiner notes that the displayed minimum cost route corresponds to zero deviation of magnitude from the one or more constraints.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gariepy to include wherein the one or more indicators include a visual indication of a cost associated with the proposed trajectory, and wherein the cost of the proposed trajectory corresponds to a magnitude of deviation from the one or more constraints imposed by the motion planner of the vehicle, as taught by Nomura.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide a cost comparison between the deviation route and a non-traveled route included in the initial route, as suggested by Nomura at the Abstract.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Gariepy teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the visual indication identifies one or more portions of the proposed trajectory in which the proposed trajectory is at least one of within a threshold distance of an object, deviates from a drivable surface, and crosses a lane boundary (see Nomura at [0025] which discloses a display device 10; see Nomura at [0035] which discloses that the display device 10 includes a liquid crystal display to show a subject vehicle position indicating a current position of the subject vehicle detected by the position detector 1, and a road map surrounding the subject vehicle formed of map data, background data, or landmark data inputted via the map data input unit 6; see Gariepy at [0102] which discloses that in some embodiments, determining if the trigger condition is satisfied can involve operating the vehicle processor to: detect, based on sensor data generated by the at least one sensor, a separation distance between the vehicle and the at least one of a pedestrian or a surrounding object identified by the proximity indicia; and determine that the separation distance between the vehicle and a surrounding object is less than a pre-determined distance threshold. Examiner maps the separation distance between the vehicle and a surrounding object being less than a pre-determined distance threshold to the proposed trajectory being at least one of within a threshold distance of an object.)
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 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 may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664