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, 2, and 4-45 of US Application No. 18/090,927 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1 and 39, canceled claim 3, and added claims 40-45.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 10 September 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn in consideration of the amended abstract.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 10 September 2025, regarding the previous interpretation of claim limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The previous interpretation is maintained. Applicant asserts that the claim term “trained system” is not a generic placeholder and provides sufficient structure for carrying out the function. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2181(I)(A) identifies “a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."” MPEP 2181(I)(A) further states that “[f]or a term to be considered a substitute for "means," and lack sufficient structure for performing the function, it must serve as a generic placeholder and thus not limit the scope of the claim to any specific manner or structure for performing the claimed function.” The term ‘system for’ has been recognized as a non-structural generic placeholder that may invoke § 112(f). Further, as used in the claim, the term ‘system’ does not limit the scope of the claim to any specific manner or structure for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the interpretation under § 112(f) is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-39 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As indicated in MPEP 2173, the primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. Further, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses; (B) "wherein" clauses; and (C) "whereby" clauses. See MPEP 2111.04(I). The claim recitation “wherein the trained system is configured to generate an output based on a presence of a curved road segment in the captured image, wherein the trained system has undergone at least one training process based on autonomous vehicle (AV) map information, and wherein the curved road segment is associated with a road on which the host vehicle is traveling”, when considered with Applicant’s amendments and arguments, makes the claim scope unclear.
Claim 1 recites:
(Currently Amended) A system for navigating a host vehicle, the system comprising:
at least one processor comprising circuitry and a memory, wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the circuitry cause the at least one processor to:
receive from a camera onboard the host vehicle a captured image representative of an environment of the host vehicle;
provide the captured image to a trained system, wherein the trained system is configured to generate an output based on a presence of a curved road segment in the captured image, wherein the trained system has undergone at least one training process based on autonomous vehicle (AV) map information, and wherein the curved road segment is associated with a road on which the host vehicle is traveling;
receive the output generated by the trained system, the output including at least one speed value for the host vehicle, wherein the at least one speed value output from the trained system is based on a proximity of the host vehicle to the curved road segment and based on at least one characteristic of the curved road segment represented in the captured image; and
cause the host vehicle to take at least one navigational action based on the determined at least one speed value.
As currently claimed, the system for navigating a host vehicle comprises a processor. The processor provides captured images to a trained system and receives output generated by the trained system. As currently claimed, the only physical element of the system is the processor having circuitry and a memory. The trained system is not recited as part of the processor and therefore is not part of the system for navigating a host vehicle. Since the trained system is not part of the system for navigating a host vehicle, the claim recitation “wherein the trained system is configured to generate an output based on a presence of a curved road segment in the captured image, wherein the trained system has undergone at least one training process based on autonomous vehicle (AV) map information, and wherein the curved road segment is associated with a road on which the host vehicle is traveling” is informational only and non-limiting. However, Applicant’s amendments and arguments suggest that Applicant intends this limitation to be limiting. See REMARKS at pages 14-15. Therefore, the scope of the claim based on the actual claim language vs. Applicant’s intention/arguments, is not clear. The Examiner previously suggested positively reciting the “trained system” and corresponding wherein clause to clarify that these recitations are actual limitations that define the scope of the claim. Applicant is correct in stating that there is no such requirement for “positively reciting” elements”. REMARKS at page 13. However, by not positively reciting the “trained system” or otherwise amending the claim such that the wherein clause is limiting, the scope of the claim remains unclear.
The scope of claim 39 is also unclear for the same reasons as claim 1. Claim 39 is a method claim but the wherein clause associated with the trained system does not contain any method steps. The wherein clause is informational and non-limiting.
Based on the above, the previous rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-39 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-39 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant references ¶ [0077] of the specification as disclosing the corresponding structure for the “trained system”. However, this paragraph of the specification discloses examples of the memory units, e.g., RAM, ROM, flash memory, etc., but does not disclose the structure of the trained system. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The previous rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-39 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-39 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the previously-cited prior art, and particularly Narmack, fails to teach “wherein the trained system has undergone at least one training process based on autonomous vehicle (AV) map information”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Narmack discloses that road samples about points ahead of the vehicle may be obtained from map data available to the vehicle. See ¶ [0011]. Machine learning algorithms are trained with historical driving data for a plurality of driving conditions, where the driving conditions may be a scenario including some specific parameter values and/or parameter value ranges of the first set of vehicle speed affecting parameters. See ¶ [0031]. A first set of vehicle speed affecting parameters may be defined as a driving condition or a driving scenario. See ¶ [0025]; Some of the parameter values of the first set of parameters may be included in road data sample and the location points may be a coordinate for the road sample. See ¶ [0042]). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Narmack teaches “wherein the trained system has undergone at least one training process based on autonomous vehicle (AV) map information”.
Further, as indicated above, the claim recitation “wherein the trained system is configured to generate an output based on a presence of a curved road segment in the captured image, wherein the trained system has undergone at least one training process based on autonomous vehicle (AV) map information, and wherein the curved road segment is associated with a road on which the host vehicle is traveling” is informative only and is not limiting. The Examiner has applied Narmack to the instant limitation merely to provide compact prosecution. Therefore, even if Narmack did not teach “wherein the trained system has undergone at least one training process based on autonomous vehicle (AV) map information”, which the Examiner does not concede, Applicant’s arguments regarding the instant recitation are moot.
Based on the above, the previous rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-39 under § 103 are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “trained system is configured to generate an output” in claims 1 and 39.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the system comprising: at least one processor comprising circuitry and a memory . . . provide the captured image to a trained system”. The trained system is not positively recited as an element of the system. As claimed, the system comprises just the processor and not the trained system. However, the functions performed by the trained system appear to be integral to other parts of the claim, e.g., the output including at least one speed for the host vehicle, wherein the at least one speed value output from the trained system is based on a proximity of the host vehicle to the curved road segment and based on at least one characteristic of the curved road segment represented in the captured image. The Examiner interprets the trained system as a necessary part of the claimed system and the trained system should be positively recited in the claim to clarify that the trained system is part of the “system for navigating a host vehicle”. Claims 2-38 are also indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 39 is directed to a “method for navigating a host vehicle”. The functions performed by the trained system are not positively recited as steps in the method. As claimed, these functions are not part of the method. However, the functions performed by the trained system appear to be integral to other parts of the claim. The Examiner interprets the functions performed by the trained system as implied steps in the method and these functions should be positively recited in the claim to clarify that the functions are part of the “method for navigating a host vehicle”.
Regarding claims 1 and 39, the claim limitation “trained system is configured to generate an output” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant has not identified any corresponding structure for the trained system and has merely provided a neural network or deep neural network as examples of the trained system. See specification at ¶ [0077]. However, the terms neural network and deep neural network do not inherently include any structure, as these terms can refer simply to software. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15-23, 25, 26, 29-31, and 39-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narmack (US 2019/0322276 A1) in view of Kim (US 2021/0387524 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 39, and 43, Narmack discloses a method and system for vehicle curve speed restriction and teaches:
at least one processor comprising circuitry and a memory, wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the circuitry cause the at least one processor to (functionality may be implemented using computer processors having machine-readable media – see at least ¶ [0077]):
receive [ ] a [parameter] (second set of parameters – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0046]);
provide the [parameter] to a trained system (vehicle speed model selection 204 – see at least Fig. 2; vehicle speed models in the form of neural networks may be trained using collected historical driving data – see at least ¶ [0018]), wherein the trained system is configured to generate an output based on a presence of a curved road segment [ ] (a recommended vehicle speed calculation 206 is performed using the selected vehicle speed model and second set of parameter values – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0048]; first set of parameters for selecting the vehicle speed model may include curvature – see at least ¶ [0042]), wherein the trained system has undergone at least one training process based on autonomous vehicle (AV) map information (road samples about points ahead of the vehicle may be obtained from map data available to the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0011]; machine learning algorithms are trained with historical driving data for a plurality of driving conditions, where the driving conditions may be a scenario including some specific parameter values and/or parameter value ranges of the first set of vehicle speed affecting parameters – see at least ¶ [0031]; first set of vehicle speed affecting parameters may be defined as a driving condition or a driving scenario – see at least ¶ [0025]; some of the parameter values of the first set of parameters may be included in road data sample and the location points may be a coordinate for the road sample – see at least ¶ [0042]), and wherein the curved road segment is associated with a road on which the host vehicle is traveling (e.g., vehicle approaching a curved segment 102 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0042]);
receive the output generated by the trained system, the output including at least one speed value for the host vehicle (instruction signal 210 is provided with the recommended vehicle speed – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0063]), wherein the at least one speed value output from the trained system is based on a proximity of the host vehicle to the curved road segment and based on at least one characteristic of the curved road segment represented in the captured image (first and second sets of parameters may include distance between the vehicle and a road sample and road curvature – see at least ¶ [0042], [0050]); and
cause the host vehicle to take at least one navigational action based on the determined at least one speed value (instruction signal 210 is provided to a control unit for restricting the speed of the vehicle at the road sample under consideration – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0063]).
Narmack fails to teach that the parameter is received from a camera onboard the host vehicle a captured image representative of an environment of the host vehicle.
However, Kim discloses an apparatus for assisting driving and teaches:
receive from a camera onboard the host vehicle a captured image representative of an environment of the host vehicle (camera module 101, including camera 101a – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0023]; controller users image data from the camera to calculate road curvature – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for vehicle curve speed restriction of Narmack to provide for receiving captured images from a camera, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success because the camera images can be used to determine a parameter, such as road curvature, (Kim at ¶ [0085]) which is used to calculate vehicle speed (Kim at ¶ [0094] and Narmack at ¶ [0048]).
Regarding claim 2, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the trained system includes a neural network (vehicle speed models in the form of neural networks may be trained using collected historical driving data – see at least ¶ [0018]).
Regarding claim 6, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the proximity to the curved road segment is associated with a distance between a current location of the host vehicle and a point along the curved road segment (first and second sets of parameters may include distance between the vehicle and a road sample ahead of the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0042], [0050]).
Regarding claim 8, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the point along the curved road segment is associated with an apex of the curved road segment (road data samples 106 define the trajectory of the vehicle – see Fig. 1; the vehicle trajectory through the curve inherently defines the apex of the curved road segment).
Regarding claim 9, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the at least one characteristic of the curved road segment includes a radius of curvature associated with the curved road segment (first and second sets of parameters may include road curvature – see at least ¶ [0042], [0050]; radius of curvature – see at least ¶ [0042]; curve radius – see at least ¶ [0061]).
Regarding claim 11, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the at least one characteristic of the curved road segment includes a banking associated with the curved road segment (first and second sets of parameters may include road inclination – see at least ¶ [0042], [0050]).
Regarding claim 15, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the at least one characteristic of the curved road segment includes a road surface condition associated with the curved road segment (parameters may include road friction – see at least ¶ [0012]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 16, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the curved road segment includes a decrease in radius of curvature relative to a portion of the road on which the host vehicle is currently located (see Fig. 1; areas with smaller radius of curvature – see at least ¶ [0042]).
Regarding claim 17, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the at least one speed value corresponds to a target speed for the host vehicle (instruction signal 210 is provided with the recommended vehicle speed – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0063]), and the at least one navigational action causes a change in a current speed of the host vehicle toward the target speed for the host vehicle (instruction signal 210 is provided to a control unit for restricting the speed of the vehicle at the road sample under consideration – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0063]).
The Examiner notes that Kim also teaches:
wherein the at least one speed value corresponds to a target speed for the host vehicle (limit speed is calculated at 1040 – see at least Fig. 4), and the at least one navigational action causes a change in a current speed of the host vehicle toward the target speed for the host vehicle (vehicle speed may be reduced at 1070 based on the limit speed – see at least Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the at least one speed value corresponds to a target speed range for the host vehicle (recommended speed may be adjusted to be below a maximum allowable speed – see at least ¶ [0058]-[0059]; i.e., speed range = maximum allowable speed and below).
Regarding claim 19, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the at least one navigational action includes an adjustment of a current speed of the host vehicle toward a value within the target speed range (instruction signal 210 is provided to a control unit for restricting the speed of the vehicle at the road sample under consideration – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0063]; i.e., instruction signal 210 will be up to, or less than, the maximum allowable speed).
Regarding claim 20, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the at least one speed value includes a plurality of discrete target speeds for the host vehicle (a recommended speed is determined for a predetermined number of road samples ahead of the vehicle and the determined recommended speed is determined again when the car passes one of the road samples – see at least ¶ [0045]).
Regarding claim 21, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the at least one navigational action includes an adjustment of a current speed of the host vehicle toward a selected one of the plurality of discrete target speeds for the host vehicle (a recommended speed is determined for a predetermined number of road samples ahead of the vehicle and the determined recommended speed is determined again when the car passes one of the road samples – see at least ¶ [0045]; i.e., a new instruction signal with the current recommended speed is output, which will increase or decrease the vehicle speed whenever the most recent determined recommended speed is different than the previously-determined recommended speed).
Regarding claim 22, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the at least one navigational action includes an adjustment of a current speed of the host vehicle toward a speed value between two of the plurality of discrete target speeds for the host vehicle (a recommended speed is determined for a predetermined number of road samples ahead of the vehicle and the determined recommended speed is determined again when the car passes one of the road samples – see at least ¶ [0045]; i.e., a new instruction signal with the current recommended speed is output, which will increase or decrease the current vehicle speed whenever the most recent determined recommended speed is different than the previously-determined recommended speed).
Regarding claim 23, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the at least one speed value corresponds to a target speed profile for the host vehicle from a current location of the host vehicle to one or more points associated with the curved road segment (a recommended speed is determined for a predetermined number of road samples 106a-e ahead of the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0045]).
Regarding claim 25, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the one or more points associated with the curved road segment includes an apex of the curved road segment (road data samples 106 define the trajectory of the vehicle – see Fig. 1; the vehicle trajectory through the curve inherently defines the apex of the curved road segment).
Regarding claim 26, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the at least one speed value corresponds to a maximum allowable speed for the host vehicle along the curved road segment (recommended speed may be adjusted to be below a maximum allowable speed – see at least ¶ [0058]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 29, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the at least one speed value corresponds to a target speed for the host vehicle after entering the curved road segment (a recommended speed is determined for a predetermined number of road samples 106a-e ahead of the vehicle – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0045]).
Regarding claim 30, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the at least one speed value is further determined based on a maximum allowable acceleration level for the host vehicle (recommended speed may be adjusted such that a threshold for lateral acceleration is not exceeded – see at least ¶ [0058], [0060]).
Regarding claim 31, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the maximum allowable acceleration level is associated with at least one of a longitudinal acceleration or a centripetal acceleration (recommended speed may be adjusted such that a threshold for longitudinal acceleration is not exceeded – see at least ¶ [0058], [0062]).
Regarding claims 40, 42, and 44, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the AV map information includes at least one of drivable paths for a roadway, road surface topology, mapped speed limits, mapped common speeds, or mapped landmarks (road samples include information from location points ahead of the vehicle and may be obtained from map data available to the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0011]).
Regarding claims 41 and 45, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the proximity to the curved road segment is associated with a distance between a current location of the host vehicle and a point along the curved road segment (first and second sets of parameters may include distance between the vehicle and a road sample and road curvature – see at least ¶ [0042], [0050]).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narmack in view of Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Firner (US 2021/0042575 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Narmack and Kim fail to teach but Firner discloses a training a neural network and teaches:
wherein the trained system has undergone at least one training process based on a plurality of images (neural network may be trained to interpret image data, e.g., predict road curvature, by inputting images 310A-C – see at least ¶ [0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for vehicle curve speed restriction of Narmack and Kim to provide a training process based on a plurality of images, as taught by Firner, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would reduce sensitivity to content or artifacts of features less related to the domain of interest (Firner at ¶ [0028]).
Regarding claim 5, Narmack further teaches:
wherein the trained system has undergone at least one training process based on map information [ ] (road samples about points ahead of the vehicle may be obtained from map data available to the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0011]; machine learning algorithms are trained with historical driving data for a plurality of driving conditions, where the driving conditions may be a scenario including some specific parameter values and/or parameter value ranges of the first set of vehicle speed affecting parameters – see at least ¶ [0031] parameter values may be include in road data sample – see at least ¶ [0042]).
Narmack and Kim fail to teach but Firner discloses a training a neural network and teaches:
wherein the trained system has undergone at least one training process based on a plurality of images (neural network may be trained to interpret image data, e.g., predict road curvature, by inputting images 310A-C – see at least ¶ [0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for vehicle curve speed restriction of Narmack and Kim to provide a training process based on a plurality of images, as taught by Firner, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would reduce sensitivity to content or artifacts of features less related to the domain of interest (Firner at ¶ [0028]).
Claims 7, 10, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narmack in view of Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugano et al. (US 2017/0021812 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 24, Narmack and Kim fail to teach but Sugano discloses a vehicle acceleration and deceleration control device and teaches:
wherein the point along the curved road segment is associated with an entry to the curved road segment (acceleration/deceleration control curve between the location at which a curve starts ad at which the curve ends – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0062]; initial velocity determined at location at which curve starts at S9 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0101]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for vehicle curve speed restriction of Narmack and Kim to provide for associating a point along the curved road segment with an entry to the curved road segment, as taught by Sugano, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for determining an initial velocity where the curve starts (Sugano at ¶ [0101]).
Regarding claim 10, Narmack and Kim fail to teach but Sugano discloses a vehicle acceleration and deceleration control device and teaches:
wherein the at least one characteristic of the curved road segment includes a minimum radius of curvature associated with the curved road segment (vehicle speeds at different locations on the curve may be calculated, including location at which radius of curvature is smallest – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0102]; lateral
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for vehicle curve speed restriction of Narmack and Kim to provide for associating a point along the curved road segment with an entry to the curved road segment, as taught by Sugano, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for determining an initial velocity where the curve starts (Sugano at ¶ [0101]).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narmack in view of Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bucht et al. (US 2020/0139971 A1, “Bucht”).
Regarding claim 12, Narmack and Kim fail to teach but Bucht discloses a method and arrangement for continuous curve speed adjustment and teaches:
wherein the at least one characteristic of the curved road segment includes one or more of a banking direction and banking angle associated with the curved road segment (target speed for each control point on a curve may be determined based on data, such as banking – see at least ¶ [0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for vehicle curve speed restriction of Narmack and Kim to provide for the characteristic being banking angle, as taught by Bucht, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for appropriate control of the vehicle for negotiating the curve (Bucht at ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 13, Bucht further teaches:
wherein the curved road segment includes an off-camber banking direction (target speed for each control point on a curve may be determined based on data, such as banking – see at least ¶ [0043]; ‘banking’ inherently encompasses both inwardly-banked and off-camber banking).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for vehicle curve speed restriction of Narmack and Kim to provide for the characteristic being banking angle, as taught by Bucht, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for appropriate control of the vehicle for negotiating the curve (Bucht at ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 14, Bucht further teaches:
wherein the curved road segment includes an inwardly-banked banking direction (target speed for each control point on a curve may be determined based on data, such as banking – see at least ¶ [0043]; ‘banking’ inherently encompasses both inwardly-banked and off-camber banking).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for vehicle curve speed restriction of Narmack and Kim to provide for the characteristic being banking angle, as taught by Bucht, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for appropriate control of the vehicle for negotiating the curve (Bucht at ¶ [0003]).
Claims 27, 28, 32, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narmack in view of Kim, as applied to claims 26 and 30 above, and further in view of Mizuno et al. (US 2019/0220008 A1, “Mizuno”).
Regarding claim 27, Narmack and Kim fail to teach but Mizuno discloses a vehicle travel control apparatus and teaches:
wherein the maximum allowed speed for the host vehicle along the curved road segment decreases over time (characteristic curve f1, which defines Vmax, may increase or decrease based on the change in road condition – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0053]; if road conditions have changed at S6, limit vehicle speed Va2 is determined at S8 based on the characteristic curve f1 for the road condition – see at least Fig. 8 and ¶ [0074]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for vehicle curve speed restriction of Narmack and Kim to provide for decreasing maximum allowed speed, as taught by Mizuno, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for taking external factors, such as road condition, into account to calculate settable ranges for vehicle target speed (Mizuno at ¶ [0055]).
Regarding claim 28, Narmack and Kim fail to teach but Mizuno discloses a vehicle travel control apparatus and teaches:
wherein the maximum allowable acceleration level is determined based on a detected characteristic of the environment of the host vehicle (limit values are calculated at S8 based on changed road surface condition determined at S6 – see at least Fig. 8 and ¶ [0074]; limit values include limit acceleration Ga1 – see at least ¶ [0074]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for vehicle curve speed restriction of Narmack and Kim to provide for determining a maximum acceleration based on a detected characteristic of the environment, as taught by Mizuno, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for taking external factors, such as road condition, into account to calculate settable ranges for vehicle target speed (Mizuno at ¶ [0055]).
Regarding claim 32, Narmack and Kim fail to teach but Mizuno discloses a vehicle travel control apparatus and teaches:
wherein the maximum allowed speed for the host vehicle along the curved road segment is updated based on at least one new captured image (camera 31a used to calculate road surface estimated value – see at least ¶ [0050]; limit map is generated based on the road surface estimated value – see at least ¶ [0051]; the limit map includes characteristic curve f1, which defines Vmax, may increase or decrease based on the change in road condition – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0053]; if road conditions have changed at S6, limit vehicle speed Va2 is determined at S8 based on the characteristic curve f1 for the road condition – see at least Fig. 8 and ¶ [0074]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for vehicle curve speed restriction of Narmack and Kim to provide for updating the maximum allowed speed based on captured images, as taught by Mizuno, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for taking external factors, such as road condition, into account to calculate settable ranges for vehicle target speed (Mizuno at ¶ [0055]).
Regarding claim 36, Narmack and Kim fail to teach but Mizuno discloses a vehicle travel control apparatus and teaches:
wherein the maximum allowable acceleration level is based on one or more of at least one operational characteristic of the host vehicle and at least one environmental condition (limit values are calculated at S8 based on changed road surface condition determined at S6 – see at least Fig. 8 and ¶ [0074]; limit values include limit acceleration Ga1 – see at least ¶ [0074]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for vehicle curve speed restriction of Narmack and Kim to provide for determining a maximum acceleration based on a detected characteristic of the environment, as taught by Mizuno, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for taking external factors, such as road condition, into account to calculate settable ranges for vehicle target speed (Mizuno at ¶ [0055]).
Regarding claim 38, Mizuno further teaches:
wherein the at least one environmental condition includes one or more of debris on the road, weather conditions, and road surface temperature (limit values are calculated at S8 based on changed road surface condition determined at S6 – see at least Fig. 8 and ¶ [0074]; limit values include limit acceleration Ga1 – see at least ¶ [0074]; road conditions include snow/ice and rain, i.e., weather conditions – see at least ¶ [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for vehicle curve speed restriction of Narmack and Kim to provide for determining a maximum acceleration based on a detected characteristic of the environment, as taught by Mizuno, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide for taking external factors, such as road condition, into account to calculate settable ranges for vehicle target speed (Mizuno at ¶ [0055]).
Claims 35 and 37 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narmack in view of Kim and Mizuno, as applied to claims 36 above, and further in view of Shalev-Shwartz et al. (US 2021/0094577 A1, “Shwartz”).
Regarding claim 35, Narmack, Kim, and Mizuno fail to teach but Shwartz discloses systems and methods for vehicle navigation and teaches:
wherein the maximum allowable acceleration level is user selectable (maximum acceleration capability may be user-defined – see at least ¶ [0851]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for vehicle curve speed restriction of Narmack, Kim, and Mizuno to provide for a user selectable maximum acceleration, as taught by Shwartz, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining the maximum acceleration based on user input may provide driving comfort and human-like driving behavior of the system (Shwartz at ¶ [0239]).
Regarding claim 37, the “at least one operational characteristics” of claim 36 are further defined. Claim 36 recites that “the maximum allowable acceleration level is based on one or more of at least one operational characteristic of the host vehicle and at least one environmental condition” (underline added). Claim 36 is rejected using art that teaches the acceleration level being based on an environmental condition. Since claim 36 includes the term “one or more of”, it is not necessary to find art that teaches the limitations of claim 37. However, to facilitate compact prosecution, the Examiner will reject the instant claim based on the prior art. In this regard, Narmack, Kim, and Mizuno fail to teach but Shwartz discloses systems and methods for vehicle navigation and teaches:
wherein the at least one operational characteristic includes one or more of tire pressure, load amount, load distribution, wear condition of tires, suspension condition, number of passengers, location of passengers within the host vehicle, and luggage weight (process 5000 includes step 5010 for determining a host vehicle maximum acceleration capability determined based on vehicle conditions, e.g., tire pressure and current load of the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0850]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for vehicle curve speed restriction of Narmack, Kim, and Mizuno to provide for determining a maximum acceleration based on oth