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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 23rd, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed July 23rd, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments presented in regards to the specific limitations “until receiving a newly generated path from the navigation system” (See applicant’s remarks page 9-10).
The applicant argues that prior art Song’s “onboard navigation apparatus” is configured to receive paths from a “roadside navigation apparatus”, rather than being configured to set its own path “until receiving a newly generated path from the navigation system”. However, Song teaches that the “onboard navigation unit” may “may determine a travelling path only according to the global path, or determine a travelling path only according to the local path, or determine a travelling path according to the global path and the local path”, wherein the global and local paths are received from a “global navigation unit” and a “roadside navigation unit”, such that the “onboard navigation unit” determines, or generates, a path in reference to the paths provided by the other units (Song, Para. 0068-0072). Furthermore, Song teaches that the “onboard navigation unit” is capable of “autonomously planning a path”, for example in the case of “emergency path adjustment such as emergency obstacle avoidance performed by the onboard navigation unit for a surrounding emergency or a simple decision-making scenario” (Song, Para. 0072). Furthermore, the claim language of the current pending claims do not specifically state that the navigation system is onboard the vehicle, which the examiner suggests including for clarity.
The newly added limitation “generating… a third path before the navigation system determines that the vehicle deviates from the first path”, further specifies the claim, however, the examiner believes the prior art Song to still teach the amendment. The amended limitation requires that the third path is generated without a deviation from the first path. While previous rejection utilizing Song was directed towards deviations from the first path (see Song, Para. 0126-0129 and the previous office action), Song further teaches wherein the “onboard navigation unit” may autonomously plan a path based on “surrounding information perceived by a vehicle” to quickly make a decision and “select an emergency path”, or “temporary path”, and further that the “onboard navigation unit” plans paths based on received global and local paths. For example, in an embodiment of Song, it may be determined that “there is a need to overtake actively” and a “third local path” is generated and the “navigation apparatus re-determines a travelling path according to the third local path and the global path”. In this case, there is not a deviation from the “global path”, or first path, but a new path is still generated for usage due to a need to overtake (Song, Para. 0072 and 0128-0130). The rejection of the independent claims has been adjusted to more accurately reflect the newly amended claim language.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song, et al., hereinafter Song (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0245938) in view of Mo, et al., hereinafter Mo (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0321055).
Regarding Claim 1, Song teaches: An apparatus for driving of a vehicle (Song, Para. 0006 – “a navigation system, apparatus, and method” for path planning of a “self-driving” vehicle), the apparatus comprising:
a processor (Song, Para. 0407 – “a processor”); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to perform (Song, Para. 0407, 0423, and 0437 – “a memory” configured to “to store an instruction”, where the “processor” is “configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory”):
receiving, from a navigation system, a first path (Song, Fig. 7A and Para. 0007, 0068-0072, and 0274-0296 – a “global navigation apparatus”, or navigation system, which receives a request to determine “a global path”, or first path, and sends the “global path” back to the requesting apparatus, i.e. an “onboard navigation apparatus”);
generating, based on the first path, a second path (Song, Fig. 7B and Para. 0007 and 0297- – determining, “according to the global path”, or first path, a “lane-level local path”, or second path, which corresponds “to at least a part of the global path”);
autonomously driving, following the second path, the vehicle (Song, Para. 0304 and 0369 – where the “onboard navigation apparatus” determines a travelling path according to the “local path” for “self-driving”);
analyzing information provided from at least one of a sensor module of the vehicle or an external server (Song, Para. 0072, 0126, and 0130 – where the “onboard navigation apparatus” may “consider surrounding information perceived by a vehicle”, such as detecting “that there is an obstacle ahead or that a preceding vehicle makes emergency braking”, and further where the “global navigation apparatus” may determine that “there is temporary construction or road closure in the front of the travelling path, and the terminal navigation apparatus needs to make a detour”);
determining, determining “that the travelling path of the terminal navigation apparatus deviates from the global path” or “deviates from the local path”);
generating, based on the determining, a third path, before the navigation system determines that the vehicle deviates from the first path (Song, Para. 0126-0130 – determining that there is a need for the terminal navigation apparatus to make a detour, a “third local path”, or “fourth local path”, may be generated, while still planning based on the “global path”, or first path; for example the need for a detour may be due to “a need to overtake actively”, “a lane needs to be changed”, “there is an obstacle ahead or that a preceding vehicle makes emergency braking”, etc., such that the detour does not deviate from the “global path”, or first path, but does change at a local, or lane, level); and
wherein the autonomously driving comprises autonomously driving, following the third path, the vehicle, until receiving a newly generated path from the navigation system (Song, Para. 0068-0072, 0126-0129, 0304, and 0369 – where the “onboard navigation apparatus” determines a travelling path according to the “local path” for “self-driving”, where the local path may be the “second global”/”second local” path, or third path, determined for a detour/deviation; where a “third local path”, or even further “a fourth local path”, may be determined and sent to the “terminal navigation apparatus”, which is onboard, to update the traveling path, for example, in a case “that there is a need to overtake actively” or “a lane needs to be changed”, etc., wherein the “onboard navigation apparatus” determines “a travelling path according to the global path and the local path”).
While Song teaches determining whether the vehicle deviates from the first path or the second path, but Song does not specifically teach determining, based on an error range and a location of the vehicle, whether the vehicle deviates from the path.
However, Mo teaches determining, based on an error range and a location of the vehicle, whether the vehicle deviates from the path (Mo, Para. 0094 – if “a geometric distance between coordinates of the user and coordinates of the second flag point is greater than the fencing radius, that is, a current location of the user falls beyond the area, the user is considered to deviate from a planned travel path, and a travel path needs to be replanned”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Song to include determining, based on an error range and a location of the vehicle, whether the vehicle deviates from the path, as taught by Mo, in order to prevent the apparatus from falsely determining that the vehicle has deviated from a path, by utilizing an error range, to improve user experience and navigation accuracy.
In regards to Claim 4, Song in view of Mo teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, and Song further teaches wherein the information comprises at least one of: a distance to an object; a direction and a speed of the object; road sign information; traffic sign information; road construction sign information (Song, Para. 0072, 0126, and 0130 – “temporary construction or road closure in the front of the travelling path”); or information of another vehicle driving on an adjacent lane.
Regarding Claim 11, Song teaches: A method for driving a vehicle (Song, Para. 0006 – “a navigation system, apparatus, and method” for path planning of a “self-driving” vehicle), the method comprising:
receiving, from a navigation system, a first path (Song, Fig. 7A and Para. 0007 and 0274-0296 – a “global navigation apparatus”, or navigation system, which receives a request to determine “a global path”, or first path, and sends the “global path” back to the requesting apparatus, i.e. an “onboard navigation apparatus”);
generating, based on the first path, a second path (Song, Fig. 7B and Para. 0007 and 0297- – determining, “according to the global path”, or first path, a “lane-level local path”, or second path, which corresponds “to at least a part of the global path”);
autonomously driving, following the second path, the vehicle (Song, Para. 0304 and 0369 – where the “onboard navigation apparatus” determines a travelling path according to the “local path” for “self-driving”);
analyzing information provided from at least one of a sensor module of the vehicle or an external server (Song, Para. 0072, 0126, and 0130 – where the “onboard navigation apparatus” may “consider surrounding information perceived by a vehicle”, such as detecting “that there is an obstacle ahead or that a preceding vehicle makes emergency braking”, and further where the “global navigation apparatus” may determine that “there is temporary construction or road closure in the front of the travelling path, and the terminal navigation apparatus needs to make a detour”);
determining, determining “that the travelling path of the terminal navigation apparatus deviates from the global path” or “deviates from the local path”);
generating, based on the determining, a third path, before the navigation system determines that the vehicle deviates from the first path (Song, Para. 0126-0130 – determining that there is a need for the terminal navigation apparatus to make a detour, a “third local path”, or “fourth local path”, may be generated, while still planning based on the “global path”, or first path; for example the need for a detour may be due to “a need to overtake actively”, “a lane needs to be changed”, “there is an obstacle ahead or that a preceding vehicle makes emergency braking”, etc., such that the detour does not deviate from the “global path”, or first path, but does change at a local, or lane, level); and
autonomously driving, following the third path, the vehicle, until receiving a newly generated path from the navigation system (Song, Para. 0068-0072, 0126-0129, 0304, and 0369 – where the “onboard navigation apparatus” determines a travelling path according to the “local path” for “self-driving”, where the local path may be the “second global”/”second local” path, or third path, determined for a detour/deviation; where a “third local path”, or even further “a fourth local path”, may be determined and sent to the “terminal navigation apparatus”, which is onboard, to update the traveling path, for example, in a case “that there is a need to overtake actively” or “a lane needs to be changed”, etc., wherein the “onboard navigation apparatus” determines “a travelling path according to the global path and the local path”).
While Song teaches determining whether the vehicle deviates from the first path or the second path, but Song does not specifically teach determining, based on an error range and a location of the vehicle, whether the vehicle deviates from the path.
However, Mo teaches determining, based on an error range and a location of the vehicle, whether the vehicle deviates from the path (Mo, Para. 0094 – if “a geometric distance between coordinates of the user and coordinates of the second flag point is greater than the fencing radius, that is, a current location of the user falls beyond the area, the user is considered to deviate from a planned travel path, and a travel path needs to be replanned”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Song to include determining, based on an error range and a location of the vehicle, whether the vehicle deviates from the path, as taught by Mo, in order to prevent the apparatus from falsely determining that the vehicle has deviated from a path, by utilizing an error range, to improve user experience and navigation accuracy.
In regards to Claim 14, Song in view of Mo teaches the method of Claim 11, and Song further teaches wherein the information comprises at least one of: a distance to an object; a direction and a speed of the object; road sign information; traffic sign information; road construction sign information (Song, Para. 0072, 0126, and 0130 – “temporary construction or road closure in the front of the travelling path”); or information of another vehicle driving on an adjacent lane.
In regards to Claim 21, Song in view of Mo teaches the method of Claim 11, and Song further teaches further comprising: receiving, from the navigation system and based on a location of the vehicle autonomously driving on the third path, the newly generated path; determining a road portion, of the newly generated path, on which the vehicle is unable to be autonomously driven; and based on the determined road portion, autonomously driving, following the third path, the vehicle (Song, Para. 0068-0072, 0126-0129, 0304, and 0369 – where the “onboard navigation apparatus” determines a travelling path according to the “local path” for “self-driving”, where the local path may be the “second global”/”second local” path, or third path, determined for a detour/deviation; where a “third local path”, or even further “a fourth local path”, may be determined and sent to the “terminal navigation apparatus”, which is onboard, to update the traveling path, in a case “a lane needs to be changed”, for example “an obstacle ahead” such that the road ahead is not available for driving, wherein the “onboard navigation apparatus” determines “a travelling path according to the global path and the local path”).
In regards to Claim 22, Song in view of Mo teaches the method of Claim 1, and Song further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to perform: receiving, from the navigation system and based on a location of the vehicle autonomously driving on the third path, the newly generated path; determining a road portion, of the newly generated path, on which the vehicle is unable to be autonomously driven; and based on the determined road portion, autonomously driving, following the third path, the vehicle (Song, Para. 0068-0072, 0126-0129, 0304, and 0369 – where the “onboard navigation apparatus” determines a travelling path according to the “local path” for “self-driving”, where the local path may be the “second global”/”second local” path, or third path, determined for a detour/deviation; where a “third local path”, or even further “a fourth local path”, may be determined and sent to the “terminal navigation apparatus”, which is onboard, to update the traveling path, in a case “a lane needs to be changed”, for example “an obstacle ahead” such that the road ahead is not available for driving, wherein the “onboard navigation apparatus” determines “a travelling path according to the global path and the local path”).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Mo, and further in view of Li, et al., hereinafter Li (Chinese Patent App. Pub. No. 115033651A).
In regards to Claim 3, Song in view of Mo teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, and while Song teaches generating the second path (Song, Fig. 7B and Para. 0007 and 0297- – determining, “according to the global path”, or first path, a “lane-level local path”, or second path, which corresponds “to at least a part of the global path”), Song does not teach wherein the generating the second path is based on a high definition (HD) map which covers: a first range ahead of a current location of the vehicle; and a second range in rear of the current location, the second range being smaller than the first range.
However, Li teaches wherein the generating the second path is based on a high definition (HD) map which covers: a first range ahead of a current location of the vehicle; and a second range in rear of the current location, the second range being smaller than the first range (Li, Para. 0002 and 0047 – “after the road that the vehicle is going to travel on is determined through route-level driving planning… map data within a range in front of and behind the vehicle (e.g., a range of 50 meters in front of the vehicle and 10 meters behind the vehicle) is extracted from HD MAP based on the vehicle's positioning information (e.g., the vehicle's position relative to the global coordinate system)” to provide lane information for route planning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus including the above limitations of Song in view of Mo to include wherein the generating the second path is based on a high definition (HD) map which covers: a first range ahead of a current location of the vehicle; and a second range in rear of the current location, the second range being smaller than the first range, as taught by Li, in order to provide the vehicle with lane and lane boundary information in a generated second path to provide more accurate navigation.
In regards to Claim 13, Song in view of Mo teaches the method of Claim 1, and while Song teaches generating the second path (Song, Fig. 7B and Para. 0007 and 0297- – determining, “according to the global path”, or first path, a “lane-level local path”, or second path, which corresponds “to at least a part of the global path”), Song does not teach wherein the generating the second path is based on a high definition (HD) map which covers: a first range ahead of a current location of the vehicle; and a second range in rear of the current location, the second range being smaller than the first range.
However, Li teaches wherein the generating the second path is based on a high definition (HD) map which covers: a first range ahead of a current location of the vehicle; and a second range in rear of the current location, the second range being smaller than the first range (Li, Para. 0002 and 0047 – “after the road that the vehicle is going to travel on is determined through route-level driving planning… map data within a range in front of and behind the vehicle (e.g., a range of 50 meters in front of the vehicle and 10 meters behind the vehicle) is extracted from HD MAP based on the vehicle's positioning information (e.g., the vehicle's position relative to the global coordinate system)” to provide lane information for route planning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method including the above limitations of Song in view of Mo to include wherein the generating the second path is based on a high definition (HD) map which covers: a first range ahead of a current location of the vehicle; and a second range in rear of the current location, the second range being smaller than the first range, as taught by Li, in order to provide the vehicle with lane and lane boundary information in a generated second path to provide more accurate navigation.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Mo, and further in view of Yu (Chinese Patent App. Pub. No. 113961661A).
In regards to Claim 7, Song in view of Mo teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, and while Song teaches the first path comprises a global path (Song, Fig. 7A and Para. 0007 and 0274-0296 – determine “a global path”, or first path), and the second path comprises a local path (Song, Fig. 7B and Para. 0007 and 0297- – determining, “according to the global path”, or first path, a “lane-level local path”, or second path, which corresponds “to at least a part of the global path”), Song does not teach wherein: the first path comprises a global path based on a standard definition (SD) map; and the second path comprises a local path based on a high definition (HD) map.
However, Yu teaches wherein: the first path comprises a global path based on a standard definition (SD) map (Yu, Para. 0161 – “acquiring the first path constructed based on the SD map”); and the second path comprises a local path based on a high definition (HD) map (Yu, Para. 0161 – obtain “a second path matching the first path in the HD map”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus including the above limitations of Song in view of Mo to include wherein: the first path comprises a global path based on a standard definition (SD) map; and the second path comprises a local path based on a high definition (HD) map, as taught by Yu, in order to provide more accurate map data to ensure accuracy and safety when performing autonomous driving (Yu, Para. 0003).
In regards to Claim 17, Song in view of Mo teaches the method of Claim 1, and while Song teaches the first path comprises a global path (Song, Fig. 7A and Para. 0007 and 0274-0296 – determine “a global path”, or first path), and the second path comprises a local path (Song, Fig. 7B and Para. 0007 and 0297- – determining, “according to the global path”, or first path, a “lane-level local path”, or second path, which corresponds “to at least a part of the global path”), Song does not teach wherein: the first path comprises a global path based on a standard definition (SD) map; and the second path comprises a local path based on a high definition (HD) map.
However, Yu teaches wherein: the first path comprises a global path based on a standard definition (SD) map (Yu, Para. 0161 – “acquiring the first path constructed based on the SD map”); and the second path comprises a local path based on a high definition (HD) map (Yu, Para. 0161 – obtain “a second path matching the first path in the HD map”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method including the above limitations of Song in view of Mo to include wherein: the first path comprises a global path based on a standard definition (SD) map; and the second path comprises a local path based on a high definition (HD) map, as taught by Yu, in order to provide more accurate map data to ensure accuracy and safety when performing autonomous driving (Yu, Para. 0003).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Mo, and further in view of Canella, et al., hereinafter Canella (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0378777).
In regards to Claim 8, Song in view of Mo teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, and Song teaches wherein, based on the vehicle deviating from the first path or the second path, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to perform: determine the third path (Song, Para. 0126-0129, 0407, 0423, and 0437 – where the “processor” is “configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory”; determining “that the travelling path of the terminal navigation apparatus deviates from the global path”, or other need for the terminal navigation apparatus to make a detour, a “second global path”, or third path, may be generated; in another embodiment, a “second local path” is generated based on the “second global path”), but Song does not teach further cause the apparatus to perform: determining, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road having a greatest number of lanes; and including the determined road in the third path.
However, Canella teaches further cause the apparatus to perform: determining, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road having a greatest number of lanes; and including the determined road in the third path (Canella, Para. 0037 – when performing route planning, “generate the navigational route” to “minimize small lane width, [and] minimize few lane numbers”, such that the route planning generates a route with large lane numbers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus including the above limitations of Song in view of Mo to include further cause the apparatus to perform: determining, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road having a greatest number of lanes; and including the determined road in the third path, as taught by Canella, in order to take into account road features, such as number of lanes, to improve safety during autonomous driving.
In regards to Claim 18, Song in view of Mo teaches the method of Claim 11, and Song teaches the third path (Song, Para. 0126-0129 – determining “that the travelling path of the terminal navigation apparatus deviates from the global path”, or other need for the terminal navigation apparatus to make a detour, a “second global path”, or third path, may be generated), but Song does not teach wherein the third path comprises, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road having a greatest number of lanes.
However, Canella teaches wherein the third path comprises, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road having a greatest number of lanes. (Canella, Para. 0037 – when performing route planning, “generate the navigational route” to “minimize small lane width, [and] minimize few lane numbers”, such that the route planning generates a route with large lane numbers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method including the above limitations of Song in view of Mo to include wherein the third path comprises, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road having a greatest number of lanes, as taught by Canella, in order to take into account road features, such as number of lanes, to improve safety during autonomous driving.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Mo, and further in view of Rust, et al., hereinafter Rust (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2017/0192423).
In regards to Claim 9, Song in view of Mo teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, and Song teaches wherein, based on the vehicle deviating from the first path or the second path, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to perform: determine the third path (Song, Para. 0126-0129, 0407, 0423, and 0437 – where the “processor” is “configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory”; determining “that the travelling path of the terminal navigation apparatus deviates from the global path”, or other need for the terminal navigation apparatus to make a detour, a “second global path”, or third path, may be generated; in another embodiment, a “second local path” is generated based on the “second global path”), but Song does not teach further cause the apparatus to perform: determining, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road on which the vehicle is unable to be autonomously driven; and excluding the determined road from the third path.
However, Rust teaches further cause the apparatus to perform: determining, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road on which the vehicle is unable to be autonomously driven; and excluding the determined road from the third path (Rust, Para. 0110 – when performing “rerouting”, an onboard computer of an autonomous vehicle takes into account “blacklist information; meaning, that during rerouting calculating a mapping or routing database will generally indicate a list of lanes, routes, or traveling paths as blacklisted or otherwise, unavailable for traveling by the autonomous vehicle” thereby “restricting the autonomous vehicle from using the blacklisted lane or path” when rerouting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus including the above limitations of Song in view of Mo to include further cause the apparatus to perform: determining, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road on which the vehicle is unable to be autonomously driven; and excluding the determined road from the third path, as taught by Rust, in order to improve the safety of the route taken, for example if a route is unavailable for autonomous driving due to obstructions or accidents, or to avoid pedestrians.
In regards to Claim 19, Song in view of Mo teaches the method of Claim 11, and Song teaches the third path (Song, Para. 0126-0129 – determining “that the travelling path of the terminal navigation apparatus deviates from the global path”, or other need for the terminal navigation apparatus to make a detour, a “second global path”, or third path, may be generated), but Song does not teach further comprising: determining, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road on which the vehicle is unable to be autonomously driven; and excluding the determined road from the third path.
However, Rust teaches further comprising: determining, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road on which the vehicle is unable to be autonomously driven; and excluding the determined road from the third path (Rust, Para. 0110 – when performing “rerouting”, an onboard computer of an autonomous vehicle takes into account “blacklist information; meaning, that during rerouting calculating a mapping or routing database will generally indicate a list of lanes, routes, or traveling paths as blacklisted or otherwise, unavailable for traveling by the autonomous vehicle” thereby “restricting the autonomous vehicle from using the blacklisted lane or path” when rerouting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method including the above limitations of Song in view of Mo to include further comprising: determining, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road on which the vehicle is unable to be autonomously driven; and excluding the determined road from the third path, as taught by Rust, in order to improve the safety of the route taken, for example if a route is unavailable for autonomous driving due to obstructions or accidents, or to avoid pedestrians.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Mo, and further in view of Lee, et al., hereinafter Lee (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2006/0100778).
In regards to Claim 10, Song in view of Mo teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, and Song teaches wherein, based on the vehicle deviating from the first path or the second path, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to perform: determine the third path (Song, Para. 0126-0129, 0407, 0423, and 0437 – where the “processor” is “configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory”; determining “that the travelling path of the terminal navigation apparatus deviates from the global path”, or other need for the terminal navigation apparatus to make a detour, a “second global path”, or third path, may be generated; in another embodiment, a “second local path” is generated based on the “second global path”), but Song does not teach further cause the apparatus to perform: determining, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road having a U-turn lane; and including the determined road in the third path.
However, Lee teaches further cause the apparatus to perform: determining, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road having a U-turn lane; and including the determined road in the third path (Lee, Para. 0022, 0029, and 0038-0046 – when “the vehicle deviates from the navigation route, the navigation device 30 searches partial routes from the deviation position to each of the multi-routes, and promptly re-searches a route to the destination using each of the partial routes, and determines a new route depending on the re-searching result”; where it is determined whether “each of the partial routes has a U-turn link”, and if the shortest-distance route includes the “U-turn”, provide the route including the U-turn as a “new route”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus including the above limitations of Song in view of Mo to include further cause the apparatus to perform: determining, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road having a U-turn lane; and including the determined road in the third path, as taught by Lee, in order to take into account road features, such as U-turn roads, to shorten travel time when a vehicle deviates from a first or second path.
In regards to Claim 20, Song in view of Mo teaches the method of Claim 11, and Song teaches the third path (Song, Para. 0126-0129 – determining “that the travelling path of the terminal navigation apparatus deviates from the global path”, or other need for the terminal navigation apparatus to make a detour, a “second global path”, or third path, may be generated), but Song does not teach wherein the third path comprises, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road having a U-turn lane.
However, Lee teaches wherein the third path comprises, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road having a U-turn lane. (Lee, Para. 0022, 0029, and 0038-0046 – when “the vehicle deviates from the navigation route, the navigation device 30 searches partial routes from the deviation position to each of the multi-routes, and promptly re-searches a route to the destination using each of the partial routes, and determines a new route depending on the re-searching result”; where it is determined whether “each of the partial routes has a U-turn link”, and if the shortest-distance route includes the “U-turn”, provide the route including the U-turn as a “new route”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method including the above limitations of Song in view of Mo to include wherein the third path comprises, among a plurality of roads ahead of the vehicle, a road having a U-turn lane, as taught by Lee, in order to take into account road features, such as U-turn roads, to shorten travel time when a vehicle deviates from a first or second path.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim, et al., hereinafter Kim (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2023/0095772) teaches a route providing device for providing a route to a vehicle including receiving dynamic information from an external device within a range of the vehicle indicating a movable object is located in the optimal driving route and dynamically updating the optimal driving route based on the received dynamic information.
Takeda, et al., hereinafter Takeda (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0031202) teaches a vehicle control system including generating a first trajectory data and when an abnormality occurs in the trajectory data, receiving and controlling the host vehicle according to the new trajectory data.
An (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2016/0138924) teaches a vehicle autonomous traveling system and a vehicle traveling method including a vehicle navigation device that plans a driver global path and an autonomous traveling path providing unit that recognizes a road environment while planning a detailed global path by mapping a partial detailed path of a lane level based on the driver global path.
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 HELEN LI whose telephone number is (703)756-4719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9am to 5pm eastern.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665