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 and Arguments
The amendment filed 12/1/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9, 11-15 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9, 11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210122373A1 Dax ("Dax") in view of US20210192234A1 Chen et al ("Chen").
As per claim 1, Dax teaches:
A method for controlling a vehicle when an obstacle is detected in surroundings of the vehicle, wherein an autonomous driving function of the vehicle plans a trajectory comprising a straight line of movement and corresponding speed values along the straight line of movement and sends the planned trajectory to a driving actuator over a signal path, the method comprising: determining and/or adapting, by an observer function of a control device of the vehicle, a shape and/or size of a dynamic protection zone that extends in a current driving direction from the vehicle, and a longitudinal extension of the dynamic protection zone extending along the straight line of movement is a function of collision speed, in that the lateral extension and longitudinal extension of the dynamic protection zone are dynamically expanded if the driving speed of the vehicle is increased and shrunk if the driving speed of the vehicle is reduced, wherein the observer function determines whether the obstacle is detected within the dynamic protection zone, in the case the obstacle is detected within the dynamic protection zone, providing a limitation signal to a limiter function from the observer function, wherein the limiter function is provided in the signal path over which trajectory data is sent from the autonomous driving function towards the driving actuator; responsive to reception of the limitation signal, manipulating the trajectory data by the limiter function to generate adapted trajectory data describing an adapted trajectory comprising the straight line of movement and limited speed values that are reduced as compared to the speed values of the planned trajectory; and performing operations by the observer function to shrink the size of the dynamic protection zone as a function of reduced speed of the vehicle due to the limited speed values such that the obstacle lies outside the shrunken dynamic protection zone or the obstacle is positioned at a border of the shrunken dynamic protection zone. (Dax at least the abstract, FIG. 6, [0044-0050])
Although Dax teaches a lateral extension of the dynamic protection zone (Dax at least FIG. 4, 416), Dax does not disclose:
a lateral extension of dynamic protection zone in opposing directions perpendicular to the straight line of movement depends on (1) a current driving speed of the vehicle and (2) a speed of the obstacle towards the straight line of movement of the trajectory
shrink the size of the lateral extension of the dynamic protection zone as a function of reduced speed
Chen teaches the aforementioned limitations (Chen at least FIGs. 2, 7, 8, [0023]: “speed of contact”, [0079-0089]: “characteristics or states of objects (e.g., vehicles, pedestrians, animals, etc.), including pose, speed, trajectory, velocity, yaw, yaw rate, roll, roll rate, pitch, pitch rate, position, acceleration, or other characteristics”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dax with the aforementioned limitations taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve the safety of autonomous vehicles (Chen [0013]).
As per claim 6, Dax in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Dax does not disclose:
the protection zone is wider than a width of the vehicle such that the protection zone also encompasses an obstacle that the vehicle would pass by on the basis of the planned trajectory.
Chen teaches the aforementioned limitation (Chen at least FIGs 2, 7, 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dax with the aforementioned limitations taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Dax in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Dax additionally teaches:
adapted trajectory data describes a reduction of the speed of the vehicle to a speed value larger than 0 such the vehicle continues driving along the line of movement. (Dax at least [0014]: “slowing down”)
Regarding claim 11, Dax in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Dax additionally teaches:
vehicle is stopped by the limiter function, if a protection zone with a size of zero is required due to the position of the obstacle. (Dax at least [0014]: “stopping to allow the object to pass”)
Regarding claim 13 Dax in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of claim 13 (as in claim 1) including the control device for a vehicle with an autonomous driving function. Dax additionally teaches a processing unit (processor, Dax at least [0063])).
Regarding claim 14, Dax in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Dax additionally teaches:
A computer readable data storage medium containing a programming code that comprises programming instructions for performing a method according to claim 1 when executed by a processing unit. (Dax at least [0063])
Regarding claim 15, Dax in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Dax additionally teaches:
A motor vehicle comprising a sensor set and an autonomous driving function coupled to the sensor set and a driving actuator coupled to the autonomous driving function over a signal path, characterized in that a control device according to claim 13 provides a limiter function in the signal path and the limiter function is coupled to an observer function. (Dax at least [0011], [0062-0067], [0074])
Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dax and Chen in view of US20110137527A1 Simon et al ("Simon").
Regarding claim 2, Dax in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Dax additionally teaches: the observer function (program) detects the obstacle based on sensor data that indicate the presence of an object (Dax at least [0011]: “LIDAR”). Dax does not disclose:
the object is classified as an obstacle, if the physical size of the object is at least a predefined minimum size.
However, Simon teaches the aforementioned limitation (Simon at least [0028]: "not execute any actions in case of an object having a width of 1 m").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dax with the aforementioned limitations taught by Simon with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to make safer driving possible (Simon [0032]).
Regarding claim 3, Dax in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Dax does not disclose:
The observer function detects the obstacle independently of a type of the object.
However, Simon teaches the aforementioned limitation (Simon at least [0021]: "objects are acquired…radar sensors…geometric information…type of object is not available").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dax with the aforementioned limitations taught by Simon with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 2.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dax and Chen in view of US20210088641A1 Kirsch et al ("Kirsch").
Regarding claim 4, Dax in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Dax does not disclose:
the observer function classifies an object as an obstacle if a classifier function of the control device and/or the autonomous driving function signals that a certainty value regarding a classification result for the object is within a predefined interval.
However, Kirsch teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kirsch at least [0032]: "object information can refer to an output of the classifier…indicate a most probable of a plurality of object classes weighted with probabilities").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dax with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kirsch with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to shorten reaction times (Kirsch [0011]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dax and Chen in view of US20210163021A1 Frazzoli ("Frazzoli").
Regarding claim 5, Dax in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Dax does not disclose:
the observer function detects the obstacle based on at least a sensor set comprising one or more sensors, and wherein a) the sensor set of the observer function comprises at least one sensor that is also comprised in a sensor set of the autonomous driving function and/or b) the sensor set of the observer function comprises at least one sensor that is different from each sensor in the sensor set of the autonomous driving function.
However, Frazzoli teaches the aforementioned limitation (Frazzoli at least [0003]: "system includes two or more different autonomous vehicle operations subsystems, each of the…subsystems being redundant with another").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dax with the aforementioned limitations taught by Frazzoli with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to comply with ISO 26262 for sensor system redundancies.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dax and Chen in view of US20190122037A1 Russell et al ("Russell").
Regarding claim 7, Dax in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Dax does not disclose:
the width of the protection zone is set on the basis of a predefined statistic distribution function of pedestrian speeds and/or at least one predefined walking speed value that describes a walking speed of a potential pedestrian who is moving perpendicular to the line of movement of the trajectory.
However, Russell teaches the aforementioned limitation (Russell at least the abstract: “grid…projected around the object…contour is generated based on the predicted likelihoods”, [0023]: "observed speed of the pedestrian…value may be determined for each cell indicating how likely the pedestrian could move", [0038]: “speed of movement…descriptive function, vector, and or bounding box”). *Examiner’s note: here the bounding box taught by Russell is around the pedestrian or object. The bounding box grows with more movement and certainty, thus the object will be predicted to be closer to the vehicle and furthermore shrinking the dynamic protection zone of the vehicle as taught by Dax.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dax with the aforementioned limitations taught by Russell with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to detect and respond to objects safely (Russell [0038]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dax and Chen in view of US20150285591A1 Tubb ("Tubb").
Regarding claim 8, Dax in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Dax does not disclose:
at least two predefined walking speed values are set, wherein each walking speed value is valid for different distance intervals with regard to the vehicle.
Tubb teaches a system for calculating the interception (collision point) of the trajectory of an object (a bullet) and a pedestrian walking and running at various distances from the bullet origin point (trajectory): (Tubb at least [0124]: "moving target…provide with a “lead”…slower walking speed…running targets…distance of the target").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dax with how obstacles moving at least perpendicular to each other can collide taught by Tubb with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to predict if and how a pedestrian running or walking will interact with the predicted trajectory of a vehicle.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dax and Chen in view of US20180061237A1 Erickson et al ("Erickson").
Regarding claim 12, Dax in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Dax does not disclose:
the shape of the protection zone is adapted to fulfill acceptance criteria of pedestrian injury rates of a given severity level, and in particular wherein assumed injury rates influencing the shape of the protection zone consider the local and temporal expected rate of crossing pedestrians.
Erickson teaches the aforementioned limitations (Erickson at least FIG.3, [0061]: "prediction of nearby behavior may be used to determine a risk of collision and alter SDV alert levels", [0079]: “threshold distance D may also be changed based on social aspects…number of pedestrians”). *Examiner’s note: here the acceptance criteria is an acceptable risk considering (based on at least the risk heatmap) that the vehicle will need to move in a non-zero risk environment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Dax with the aforementioned limitations taught by Erickson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to increase safety (Erickson [0062]).
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 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 OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669