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
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 and 22 are currently pending and are addressed below. Claims 5, 6, 8-10, and 21 are withdrawn as being directed to non-elected inventions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 and 22 are currently pending. The previous 35 USC 101 rejection is overcome by Applicant’s amendments and comments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 7, 16-17, and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references and/or rationale being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 15-17, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 2021/0109536) in view of Adam et al. (US 2024/0067174).
Regarding claim 1:
Oh teaches a method comprising:
obtaining, by at least one processor, mapping data characterizing an environment the mapping data indicating boundaries of a first road lane in the environment (precise map 215, infrastructure detector 221, see at least ¶0057-0063);
identifying, by the at least one processor, a portion of the first road lane as a narrowed road lane, the narrowed road lane having a reduced width in at least a portion of the narrowed road lane compared to a width of the first road lane (identifying drivable area based on object information detector 221 and infrastructure information, including lane boundaries, shape of road, lanes, etc., see at least ¶0063, ¶0067-0080, Figs. 4a, b, 5A,B, 7, 10.);
wherein the boundary defines a drivable area of the first road lane (see at least ¶0063, Fig. 4A, B, 5A, B. The Examiner notes that the term “drivable area” as used in the Oh reference does not strictly correspond to the “drivable area” as claimed, and is more closely aligned with the “narrowed road lane” of the instant claims. The Examiner further notes that the “boundary” as claimed may constitute a lane boundary such as a line or curb, or an obstacle, construction cone, etc. as taught by Oh.);
evaluating, by the at least one processor, a plurality of candidate travel paths in a search space that includes the narrowed road lane and excludes at least a portion of the first road lane that is not included in the narrowed road lane (see at least plurality of paths 1002, Fig. 10, ¶0048-0050, ¶0097);
determining, by the at least one processor, a particular travel path for a vehicle through the narrowed road lane based on the evaluation of the plurality of candidate travel paths, wherein the plurality of candidate travel paths include the particular travel path (see at least ¶0100-0101); and
controlling the vehicle to travel along the particular travel path (see at least ¶0009).
Oh further at least suggests, but does not explicitly teach wherein the narrowed road lane (drivable area) may exclude at least some area of the road lane (see at least Fig. 4B, drivable area excludes a region proximate the cones/ other vehicles, and Fig. 5A, wherein the drivable area excludes an area adjacent the left line/curb and some area adjacent a further right lane line, Fig. 10, paths excluding a portion of the lane surrounding the obstacle).
Adams teaches a system and method of controlling a position of an autonomous vehicle in a lane including maintaining a buffer area around obstacles and lane boundaries (see at least abstract, ¶0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the autonomous vehicle control system and method as taught by Oh with the buffer areas surrounding obstacles and lane boundaries as taught by Adam in order to ensure a safe distance from obstacles and boundaries for passenger safety, comfort, and preference.
Regarding claim 2:
Oh further teaches identifying, by the at least one processor, the narrowed road lane using an environmental feature in proximity to the first road lane (see at least ¶0072).
Regarding claim 3:
Oh further teaches wherein identifying the narrowed road lane comprises identifying the narrowed road lane based on a parking feature, a curb feature, or a construction feature (see at least ¶0071-0072).
Regarding claim 4:
Oh further teaches wherein identifying the portion of the first road lane as the narrowed road lane comprises: excluding, from the narrowed road lane compared to the first road lane, an area adjacent to the environmental feature (see at least Fig. 4b, ¶0071-0072).
Regarding claim 15:
Adams further teaches wherein the portion of the first road lane excluded from the narrowed road lane comprises a drivable portion (see at least ¶0040).
Regarding claim 16-17 and 19-20, the combination of Oh and Adams teaches a system comprising a processor and non-transitory computer readable medium for performing the method as in claims 1-4 above (see controller 40, storage 10).
Regarding claim 22:
Oh further teaches wherein the boundary comprises at least one of a railing, road paint, or a curb (see at least ¶0063).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh and Adams as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Huang et al. (US 2021/0347382).
Regarding claim 7 and 18:
Oh teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above.
Oh further teaches selecting a particular travel path based on an optimization process (see at least ¶0044-0045).
Oh is silent as to applying an optimization process to a plurality of nodes to obtain the particular travel path.
Huang teaches a system and method of vehicle path planning, including applying an optimization process to determine a plurality of nodes in a narrowed road lane and selecting a particular travel path based on the plurality of nodes (see at least abstract, ¶0117, Figs. 4, 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the vehicle trajectory planning system and method as taught by Oh with the well-known technique of optimizing a path through a plurality of nodes to select a path around an obstacle as taught by Huang in order to quickly and efficiently determine an optimal solution to a path planning problem.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoi Tran can be reached on 5712726919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ryan Rink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights