DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 10-17, 19 and 21 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 arguments [e.g., with respect to applicant’s arguments concerning the previously indicated prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103, in view of applicant’s amendments that now clarify and further limit the subject matter of the respective independent claims 1 and 16, the previously cited prior art reference US 20150073661 A1 (Raisch) is now being relied upon to fairly render the claimed invention(s) obvious, in particular with respect to the limitations that describe having the motor vehicle configured to drive over (or override, bypass, etc.) one of the first and second boundaries when a driving maneuver is not possible within the first and second boundaries];
[e.g., notwithstanding that the examiner maintains that Heimberger at least suggests the aforementioned functional capability via the previously cited context explaining that the motor vehicle is configured to be maneuvered such that there is no risk of collision (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0038]-[0040]), such that new boundaries are presumably set that override and/or bypass the initially set boundaries of the driving tube in the event that the position(s) of the one or more landmarks change(s), especially in what may be reasonably regarded as a dynamic driving environment where one or more of the various landmarks are subject to change (such as a previously parked vehicle being driven out of a parking spot and in such a way that would result in a potential collision with the autonomous or semi-autonomous motor vehicle), Raisch explicitly teaches the same (or a substantially similar) functional capability, such that a new (or bypass) trajectory and/or driving path is calculated that is configured to bypass (or override) one of the initial boundaries of the driving tube and/or the initially calculated trajectory and/or driving path when it is not possible to maneuver through the driving tube and/or the initially calculated trajectory and/or driving path due to an object entering the driving tube and/or the driving path (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0020], [0037], [0048], further noting that there is no meaningful functional distinction between crossing an initial boundary and bypassing (or overriding) the initial boundary via calculating or setting an alternative driving tube or driving path defined by new boundaries, since both merely entail having the motor vehicle bypass (or override) the initial boundary in the same (or a substantially similar) manner when it is not possible to drive within the initial boundaries without colliding with an object/landmark and/or due to an object/landmark entering within initial boundaries)];
[e.g., in view of the closest prior art of record, the claimed invention(s) AT BEST constitute(s) a novel but non-inventive combination of well-known analogous prior art elements/techniques derived from the general field(s) of endeavor concerning autonomous and/or semi-autonomous vehicles, techniques for determining drivable trajectories and/or driving tubes for vehicles, methods pertaining to autonomously navigating/guiding vehicles so as to avoid collision(s) with objects, agents, landmarks, parked vehicles, etc., and to the extent that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly arrive at the claimed invention(s) for the reasons/rationales discussed per the detailed rejection below, and/or to the extent that there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly applying and/or combining the various features per the respective prior art references as desired to achieve the same readily foreseeable technical effects and/or advantages pertaining to autonomous and/or semi-autonomous vehicle guidance/maneuverability, driving assistance, collision avoidance, etc. as discussed per the detailed rejection below].
Further note that in view of applicant’s amendments, the previously indicated claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. See detailed rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-15, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious EP 3333049 A1 (Heimberger) in view of US 20200086855 A1 (Packer) in further view of US 20150073661 A1 (Raisch).
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 21, Heimberger (Figures 1-3) [emphasis on Fig. 2-3] teaches a method for producing a drivable region (11) for an at least semi-autonomously or fully autonomously operated motor vehicle (1) (see Fig. 1-3 in conjunction with paragraph [0036]), the method comprising:
specifying a drivable trajectory (26) (see Fig. 2-3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0038]-[0040]);
specifying a first boundary (25) for a usable driving tube comprising a first lateral distance to the drivable trajectory and which is formed on a first side of the drivable trajectory (see Fig. 2-3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0038]-[0040]) [e.g., the driving tube defined by and/or delimited by the broken line(s) 25];
specifying a second boundary [e.g., the broken line opposite to the first boundary 25] for the usable driving tube comprising a second lateral distance to the drivable trajectory and which is formed on a second side of the drivable trajectory opposite to the first side (see Fig. 2-3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0038]-[0040]);
producing the drivable region comprising the drivable trajectory, the first boundary, and the second boundary as the usable driving tube (see Fig. 2-3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0038]-[0040]).
Heimberger (Figures 1-3) further teaches (at least implicitly) an electronic computing device and/or a non-transitory computer readable medium containing program instructions for causing a processor to perform the aforementioned method step(s) (see Fig. 1-3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0033]-[0040]) [e.g., the control unit 3 and/or device 9 per Fig. 1 with respect to the computing device(s) 21-24 per Fig. 23, and/or the communication system 28 corresponding to the claimed feature(s) responsible for performing the aforementioned method step(s)].
Heimberger fails to expressly teach wherein the drivable trajectory is necessarily formed by a trajectory point sequence, and similarly, wherein each of the first and second boundaries are formed as a respective boundary point sequence, and wherein the first boundary and the second boundary are defined such that driving over the first boundary or the second boundary is configured to be carried out by the motor vehicle when a driving maneuver is not possible within the first boundary and the second boundary. Note that Heimberger at least suggests wherein the first boundary and the second boundary are defined such that driving over the first boundary or the second boundary is configured to be carried out by the motor vehicle when a driving maneuver is not possible within the first boundary and the second boundary via context (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0038]-[0040]) [e.g., “The driving path 25 is determined in such a way that there is no risk of collision between the motor vehicle 1 and the parked motor vehicles 13 and/or the pillars 29”]; [e.g., “These maneuvering data describe the driving path 25 relative to landmarks 27”]; [e.g., the particular path boundaries 25 are provided as being determined such that there is no risk of collision, and as such, it logically follows that in a dynamic environment where one or more of the various landmarks are subject to change (such as a previously parked vehicle being driven out of a parking spot and in such a way that would result in a potential collision with the autonomous or semi-autonomous motor vehicle), that at least one of the initial path boundaries 25 would be crossed by the motor vehicle in order to avoid collision(s), and/or that the boundaries 25 would be subject to change in order to avoid collision(s), said change resulting in at least one of the initial path boundaries 25 being crossed].
However, Packer (Figure 1) teaches an analogous collision avoidance system/method for an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle (102) (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraphs [0011]-[0013]), and wherein the drivable region(s) is/are defined such that the corresponding drivable trajectory and first and second boundaries are formed via respective point sequences [e.g., per Fig. 1, the first and second boundary point sequences defined by the opposing pairs of points 110, and such that a drivable trajectory point sequence is (or can be) defined therebetween] for a usable driving tube (104) (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraphs [0011]-[0013] and [0025]-[0026]) [e.g., “the path polygon 104 may be represented as pairs of points 110, though any number of individual points are contemplated”].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly implement the aforementioned technical feature(s) into the system/method per Heimberger as a modification (or an alternative) [e.g., having the boundaries 25 that define the usable driving tube per Fig. 2-3 of Heimberger implemented and/or further defined via respective boundary point sequences and such that a trajectory point sequence is defined between opposing boundary points of the respective boundary point sequences along the drivable trajectory 26], as suggested by Packer, in order to more accurately determine a particular location of the vehicle being driven, and thereby improve the collision avoidance function(s) for the vehicle and/or reduce (or further reduce) the risk and/or likelihood of collision(s) (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraphs [0011]-[0013], [0025]-[0029], [0066]).
Raisch (Figures 1-2) teaches an analogous method for at least semi-autonomous operation of an at least semi-autonomously operated motor vehicle (7) within a drivable region (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with abstract), and wherein driving over the first boundary or the second boundary is configured to be carried out by the motor vehicle when a driving maneuver is not possible within the first boundary and the second boundary [e.g., per Fig. 1, the boundaries defined by the driving path 11 and/or the respective lines on each side of the trajectory 9] (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0020], [0037], [0048]) [e.g., “If during detection of the surroundings of a motor vehicle an object is identified in the driving path, it is ascertained in one specific embodiment of the present invention whether the object may be bypassed. If bypassing is possible, a new driving path is determined as the object is bypassed and the driving maneuver is carried out in such a way that the motor vehicle moves within the new driving path”]; [e.g., “if an object 15 is situated in driving path 11, to initially check whether it is possible to bypass object 15 by calculating a new trajectory and the resulting driving path is such that object 15 is no longer situated in the driving path. In bypassing object 15 in this case, the driving maneuver may be resumed”]; [e.g., a new (or bypass) trajectory and/or driving path is calculated so as to avoid collision(s) with the object(s) 15, such that said new (or bypass) trajectory and/or driving path would necessarily result in one of the initial boundaries being crossed due to it not being possible to maneuver within the initial boundaries without colliding with the object(s) 15].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to have wherein driving over the first boundary or the second boundary is carried out by the motor vehicle when a driving maneuver is not possible within the first boundary and the second boundary as a modification (or an alternative) in the invention(s) per Heimberger [e.g., for the sake of argument that this would not already be the case in Heimberger in view of the context per at least paragraphs [0038]-[0040] of Heimberger concerning maneuvering the motor vehicle relative to landmarks such that there is no risk of collision, applying the aforementioned technical feature(s) per Raisch to Heimberger, such that a new (or bypass) trajectory and/or driving path is calculated that bypasses (or overrides) one of the initial boundaries of the driving tube per Heimberger when an object enters or is within the initially calculated driving tube], as suggested by Raisch, in order to further improve/enhance the driver assistance system by ensuring that the vehicle is able to successfully maneuver around (or avoid colliding with) one or more objects in a dynamic driving environment [e.g., when an object or landmark ends up within the initially calculated driving tube], and thereby avoid collision with said one or more objects and/or yield an improvement in safety for the occupant(s) of the vehicle and/or pedestrian(s)/object(s) that may have entered the driving tube/path (implicit in view of basic engineering logic/principles) (see paragraphs [0048]-[0049]) [e.g., “The driver is provided with improved assistance as a result of the recalculation of a trajectory when detecting an object in the driving path, or as a result of the interruption of the driving maneuver and subsequent resumption. Even when detecting an object which is situated near the driving path or in the driving path, it is possible to resume the driving maneuver either along an alternate route or after the object has left the driving path”].
Additionally (or alternatively), note that the aforementioned modifications constitute the application and/or combination of well-known analogous prior art elements/techniques in such a way as to yield highly predictable results [e.g., in consideration that Heimberger, Packer, and Raisch are each relevant to at least the same general field(s) of endeavor concerning autonomous and/or semi-autonomous vehicles, techniques for determining drivable trajectories and/or driving tubes for vehicles, methods pertaining to autonomously navigating/guiding vehicles so as to avoid collision(s) with objects, agents, landmarks, parked vehicles, etc., there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly applying the technical features per Packer and/or Raisch to the system/method per Heimberger, and similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on certain factors concerning the particular application (cost considerations, safety requirements, the particular driving environment(s), etc.), without exercising inventive skill].
Regarding claim 2, Heimberger in view of Packer in view of Raisch teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Heimberger (Figures 1-3) further teaches wherein the drivable region is transmitted to the at least semi-autonomously or fully autonomously operated motor vehicle from a vehicle-external device (21-24) (see Fig. 1-3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0036]-[0038]) [e.g., “Based on the digital map, a travel path 25 can now be determined using the computing device 23”]; [e.g., “The driving path 25 describes an area of the parking area 11 on which the motor vehicle 1 can be maneuvered without collision”].
Regarding claims 3-4, Heimberger in view of Packer in view of Raisch teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Heimberger fails to expressly teach assigning respective boundary points of a boundary point sequence to the trajectory point(s) of the trajectory point sequence [e.g., assigning respective boundary points to the trajectory point(s) of the vehicle based on the position of the vehicle and/or the trajectory of the vehicle], and such that the trajectory point(s) lie(s) on a line which runs perpendicular to a direction of travel of the motor vehicle.
However, Packer (Figure 1) teaches an analogous collision avoidance system/method for an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle (102) (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraphs [0011]-[0013]), and wherein the drivable region(s) is/are defined such that the corresponding drivable trajectory and first and second boundaries are formed via respective point sequences [e.g., per Fig. 1, the first and second boundary point sequences defined by the opposing pairs of points 110, and such that a drivable trajectory point sequence is (or can be) defined therebetween] for a usable driving tube (104), and such that the trajectory point(s) lie(s) on a line which runs perpendicular to the direction of travel of the motor vehicle (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraphs [0011]-[0013] and [0025]-[0026]) [e.g., observe points 110(1) and 110(2) or any other pair of points 110, such that the vehicle trajectory point(s) that is/are (or can be) defined between any given pair of points can be reasonably regarded such that an imaginary line runs perpendicular to the direction of travel of the motor vehicle]; [e.g., “The path polygon 104 may be defined by a plurality of points 110 and may represent a two-dimensional representation of a planned path of the vehicle 102 through the environment 100. In various examples, the path polygon 104 may be represented as pairs of points 110, though any number of individual points are contemplated. In some examples, the path polygon 104 may comprise a region formed by connecting individual points of the pairs of points 110 to define a perimeter of the path polygon 104. The pairs of points 110 may represent a left boundary and a right boundary of the vehicle 102. In some examples, the left and right boundaries of the vehicle may represent a minimum distance, such as, for example, a width of the vehicle 102. For example, the left and right boundaries may represent a left and right outermost edge of the vehicle, respectively. In some examples, the left and right boundaries (e.g., minimum distance) may additionally include a buffer outside the outermost edge of the vehicle”]; [e.g., “a position of the left and right points 110 of a point pair may be individually adjusted based on a maneuver of the vehicle 102, such as, for example a turn. In such examples, a left point, such as left point 110(1) or right point, such as right point 110(2) of the point pair may be adjusted outward a distance (e.g., 3 inches, 5 inches, 8 inches, etc.) based on the maneuver. In various examples, the left or the right points 110 may be adjusted outward the distance based on a radius of curvature associated with a turn. For example, in a 45-degree right turn, a right point 110 of the point pair may be adjusted outward a distance to account for an additional space the vehicle 102 may occupy as the vehicle 102 travels through the turn”]; see motivation(s)/rationale(s) as discussed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Heimberger in view of Packer in view of Raisch teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Heimberger (Figures 1-3) further teaches wherein an electronic map [e.g., digital map] is provided for the drivable region, wherein the drivable region is designed as a parking region (11) (see Fig. 1-3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0036]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 6, Heimberger in view of Packer in view of Raisch teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Heimberger (Figures 1-3) further teaches (at least implicitly) and/or suggests wherein an electronic map [e.g., digital map] is provided for the drivable region, wherein the drivable region is designed (or designable) as a roofed parking garage (11) (see Fig. 1-3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0036]-[0038]) [e.g., “The parking area 11 can, for example, be assigned to a public parking lot, a parking garage, a parking lot or the like”]; [e.g., further noting that parking garages are well-known for having or possibly having one or more roofed areas, and/or that roofed parking garages are reasonably encompassed by the disclosed parking garage(s)].
Regarding claims 7-8, Heimberger in view of Packer in view of Raisch teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Heimberger fails to expressly teach wherein the first boundary is specified in a first lateral distance range of the first lateral distance between 1.25m and 1.75m, and similarly, wherein the second boundary is specified in a second lateral distance range of the second lateral distance between 2m and 2.75m.
However, notwithstanding that the aforementioned technical feature(s) is/are reasonably encompassed by and/or at least suggested via the context per Heimberger, and to the extent that the particular values claimed is/are merely with respect to the particular external dimension(s) of the vehicle and/or the particular arrangement of the parking area (11) and/or the landmarks (or objects) within the parking area (see Fig. 1-3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0036]-[0040]) [e.g., the particular value(s) claimed is/are merely with respect to a desired optimization (or embodiment) for a particular parking area and/or a vehicle defined by specific external dimensions, and such that the particular value(s) is/are merely a function of determining a desired pathing around the parking area with desired clearances being maintained in the same (or a substantially similar) manner per Heimberger, to accordingly navigate/guide the vehicle around the parking area without any chance of collision(s)],
Packer (Figure 1) teaches an analogous collision avoidance system/method for an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle (102) (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraphs [0011]-[0013]), and wherein the drivable region(s) is/are defined such that the corresponding drivable trajectory and first and second boundaries are formed via respective point sequences [e.g., per Fig. 1, the first and second boundary point sequences defined by the opposing pairs of points 110, and such that a drivable trajectory point sequence is (or can be) defined therebetween] for a usable driving tube (104), and such that appropriate lateral distance(s) and associated range(s) is/are determined and/or maintained between the boundaries of the usable driving tube and the driving trajectory (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraphs [0011]-[0013] and [0025]-[0026]) [e.g., “The pairs of points 110 may represent a left boundary and a right boundary of the vehicle 102. In some examples, the left and right boundaries of the vehicle may represent a minimum distance, such as, for example, a width of the vehicle 102. For example, the left and right boundaries may represent a left and right outermost edge of the vehicle, respectively. In some examples, the left and right boundaries (e.g., minimum distance) may additionally include a buffer outside the outermost edge of the vehicle. For example, a left point 110(1) of a point pair may represent a left outermost boundary of the vehicle 102 plus 3 inches, 6 inches, 8 inches, or the like, and a right point 110(2) of the point pair may represent a right outermost boundary of the vehicle 102 plus 3 inches, 6 inches, 8 inches, or the like. The example buffer distances in this example are for illustrative purposes only and may include any distance less than or greater than the distances listed. The buffer on the left side and the right side may be the same or different”]; [e.g., emphasis on the aforementioned context providing that ANY DISTANCE may be used as desired, which reasonably encompasses the claimed distance(s) and/or distance range(s), further noting that even in the event that claim 8 were to depend from claim 7, the aforementioned context also provides that the distances on each side of the vehicle (or the first and second distances with respect to the drivable trajectory) MAY BE DIFFERENT]; see motivation(s)/rationale(s) as discussed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Heimberger in view of Packer in view of Raisch teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Heimberger (Figures 1-3) further teaches (at least implicitly) and/or suggests wherein the drivable trajectory, the first boundary, and the second boundary are determined (or determinable) as a function of a specific dimension of the motor vehicle (see Fig. 1-3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0016], [0040]) [e.g., “a trajectory 26 within the driving path 25 is determined by means of the driver assistance system. The trajectory 26 can be determined based on the external dimensions and/or a turning circle of the motor vehicle 1”]; [e.g., at least the external dimension(s) of the vehicle corresponding to the claimed specific dimension of the motor vehicle, and such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably infer that for a wider vehicle, the respective boundaries 25 per Fig. 2-3 would also necessarily be a function of said external dimension(s)].
Regarding claim 11, Heimberger in view of Packer in view of Raisch teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Heimberger (Figures 1-3) further teaches (at least implicitly) and/or suggests wherein the specific dimension is transmitted (or transmittable) upon entry [e.g., at 19 per Fig. 2-3] of the motor vehicle into the drivable region from the motor vehicle [e.g., via one or more of 2, 10, 3, 9, 4, etc. per Fig. 1] to a motor vehicle-external electronic computing device (21-24) (see Fig. 1-3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0036]-[0038], [0040]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 12, Heimberger in view of Packer in view of Raisch teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Heimberger (Figures 1-3) further teaches (at least implicitly) and/or suggests wherein the specific dimension is determined (or determinable) upon entry [e.g., at 19] of the motor vehicle into the drivable region by means of a detection device (21-24) of the drivable region (see Fig. 1-3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0036]-[0038], [0040]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 13, Heimberger in view of Packer in view of Raisch teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Heimberger (Figures 1-3) further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein the motor vehicle is localized in the drivable region (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0038]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 14, Heimberger in view of Packer in view of Raisch teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Heimberger (Figures 1-3) further teaches (at least implicitly) and/or suggests wherein the motor vehicle is localized in the drivable region on a basis of odometry data of the motor vehicle (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0038]-[0040]) [e.g., “During the maneuvering of the motor vehicle 1, the position of the motor vehicle 1 is continuously determined using the motion sensor 10 or by means of odometry”]; [e.g., “With the help of the control unit 3 of the driver assistance system 2, the relative position between the motor vehicle 1 and the respective landmarks 27 can then be determined. This allows odometry errors to be compensated”].
Regarding claim 15, Heimberger in view of Packer in view of Raisch teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Heimberger (Figures 1-3) further teaches (at least implicitly) and/or suggests wherein the motor vehicle is localized in the drivable region on a basis of landmarks [e.g., per Fig. 2, one or more of 15, 16, 17, 18, 29 and/or the described landmarks 27] in the drivable region (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0038]-[0040]) [e.g., “These maneuvering data describe the driving path 25 relative to landmarks 27”]; [e.g., “the parking area markings 15, the marking elements 16, the traffic signs 17, the information sign 18 and the pillars 29 can be used as landmarks 27”].
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over EP 3333049 A1 (Heimberger) in view of US 20150073661 A1 (Raisch).
Regarding claim 16, Heimberger (Figures 1-3) [emphasis on Fig. 2-3] teaches a method for at least semi-autonomous operation of an at least semi-autonomously operated motor vehicle (1) within a drivable region (11) (see Fig. 1-3 in conjunction with paragraph [0036]), the method comprising:
receiving an electronic map [e.g., digital map] comprising a drivable trajectory (26), a first boundary (25), and a second boundary [e.g., the broken line opposite to the first boundary 25], which delimit a drivable driving tube (see Fig. 2-3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0036]-[0040]) [e.g., “A digital map of parking area 11 is stored in memory 22”]; [e.g., “Based on the digital map, a travel path 25 can now be determined”]; [e.g., “The driving path 25 describes an area of the parking area 11 on which the motor vehicle 1 can be maneuvered without collision”]; [e.g., the driving tube defined by and/or delimited by the broken line(s) 25]; and
determining an individual driving trajectory (26) of the motor vehicle as a function of the drivable driving tube (see Fig. 2-3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0036]-[0040]) [e.g., “a trajectory 26 within the driving path 25 is determined by means of the driver assistance system”]; [e.g., “The trajectory 26 can be determined based on the external dimensions and/or a turning circle of the motor vehicle 1”]; [e.g., “The motor vehicle 1 is then maneuvered autonomously along this trajectory 26”].
Heimberger fails to explicitly or expressly teach wherein driving over the first boundary or the second boundary is configured to be carried out by the motor vehicle when a driving maneuver is not possible within the first boundary and the second boundary. Note that Heimberger at least suggests the aforementioned subject matter via context (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0038]-[0040]) [e.g., “The driving path 25 is determined in such a way that there is no risk of collision between the motor vehicle 1 and the parked motor vehicles 13 and/or the pillars 29”]; [e.g., “These maneuvering data describe the driving path 25 relative to landmarks 27”]; [e.g., the particular path boundaries 25 are provided as being determined such that there is no risk of collision, and as such, it logically follows that in a dynamic environment where one or more of the various landmarks are subject to change (such as a previously parked vehicle being driven out of a parking spot and in such a way that would result in a potential collision with the autonomous or semi-autonomous motor vehicle), that at least one of the initial path boundaries 25 would be crossed by the motor vehicle in order to avoid collision(s), and/or that the boundaries 25 would be subject to change in order to avoid collision(s), said change resulting in at least one of the initial path boundaries 25 being crossed].
However, Raisch (Figures 1-2) teaches an analogous method for at least semi-autonomous operation of an at least semi-autonomously operated motor vehicle (7) within a drivable region (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with abstract), and wherein driving over the first boundary or the second boundary is configured to be carried out by the motor vehicle when a driving maneuver is not possible within the first boundary and the second boundary [e.g., per Fig. 1, the boundaries defined by the driving path 11 and/or the respective lines on each side of the trajectory 9] (see Fig. 1-2 in conjunction with paragraphs [0020], [0037], [0048]) [e.g., “If during detection of the surroundings of a motor vehicle an object is identified in the driving path, it is ascertained in one specific embodiment of the present invention whether the object may be bypassed. If bypassing is possible, a new driving path is determined as the object is bypassed and the driving maneuver is carried out in such a way that the motor vehicle moves within the new driving path”]; [e.g., “if an object 15 is situated in driving path 11, to initially check whether it is possible to bypass object 15 by calculating a new trajectory and the resulting driving path is such that object 15 is no longer situated in the driving path. In bypassing object 15 in this case, the driving maneuver may be resumed”]; [e.g., a new (or bypass) trajectory and/or driving path is calculated so as to avoid collision(s) with the object(s) 15, such that said new (or bypass) trajectory and/or driving path would necessarily result in one of the initial boundaries being crossed due to it not being possible to maneuver within the initial boundaries without colliding with the object(s) 15].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to have wherein driving over the first boundary or the second boundary is configured to be carried out by the motor vehicle when a driving maneuver is not possible within the first boundary and the second boundary as a modification (or an alternative) in the invention(s) per Heimberger [e.g., for the sake of argument that this would not already be the case in Heimberger in view of the context per at least paragraphs [0038]-[0040] of Heimberger concerning maneuvering the motor vehicle relative to landmarks such that there is no risk of collision, applying the aforementioned technical feature(s) per Raisch to Heimberger, such that a new (or bypass) trajectory and/or driving path is calculated that bypasses (or overrides) one of the initial boundaries of the driving tube per Heimberger when an object enters or is within the initially calculated driving tube], as suggested by Raisch, in order to further improve/enhance the driver assistance system by ensuring that the vehicle is able to successfully maneuver around (or avoid colliding with) one or more objects in a dynamic driving environment [e.g., when an object or landmark ends up within the initially calculated driving tube], and thereby avoid collision with said one or more objects and/or yield an improvement in safety for the occupant(s) of the vehicle and/or pedestrian(s)/object(s) that may have entered the driving tube/path (implicit in view of basic engineering logic/principles) (see paragraphs [0048]-[0049]) [e.g., “The driver is provided with improved assistance as a result of the recalculation of a trajectory when detecting an object in the driving path, or as a result of the interruption of the driving maneuver and subsequent resumption. Even when detecting an object which is situated near the driving path or in the driving path, it is possible to resume the driving maneuver either along an alternate route or after the object has left the driving path”].
Additionally (or alternatively), note that the aforementioned modification (or alternative) constitutes the application and/or combination of well-known analogous prior art elements/techniques in such a way as to yield highly predictable results [e.g., in consideration that Heimberger and Raisch are both relevant to at least the same general field(s) of endeavor concerning at least semi-autonomous vehicles, determining trajectories for parking at least semi-autonomous vehicles without collision(s), etc., there would be no unexpected result(s)/effect(s) yielded via accordingly applying the aforementioned feature(s) per Raisch to the invention(s) per Heimberger so as to achieve the same readily foreseeable technical effect(s) discussed above, and similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art can readily select from various well-known configurations based on certain factors concerning the particular application (cost considerations, safety requirements, the particular driving environment(s), etc.), without exercising inventive skill].
Regarding claim 17, Heimberger in view of Raisch teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Heimberger (Figures 1-3) [emphasis on Fig. 2-3] further teaches (at least implicitly) wherein an object [e.g., landmark] (17) in the drivable driving tube is evaded autonomously by the motor vehicle within the driving tube (see Fig. 2-3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0036]-[0040]) [e.g., “Fig. 2 shows the motor vehicle 1, which is maneuvered autonomously on a parking area 11”]; [e.g., per Fig. 2, observe the at least semi-autonomous vehicle 1 being navigated/guided so as to avoid (or evade) the landmark/traffic sign 17, while staying within the broken lines 25 that delimit the driving tube].
Pertinent Prior Art / Examiner Comment
While not relied upon per the detailed rejection above, the examiner further notes the following prior art reference as being similarly and/or incredibly pertinent to the subject matter of at least the independent claims 1 and 16:
DE 102019105547 A1 (Baumgartl)
For example, Baumgartl (Figure 3a) teaches an incredibly similar and/or comparable driving trajectory (300) for an at least semi-autonomous (or at least partially automated) vehicle with respective first and second boundary point sequences (302) that define a usable driving tube (301) (see Fig. 3a and paragraphs [0001], [0007], [0039]-[0043]).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D TAYLOR JR whose telephone number is (469)295-9192. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9a-5p (central time).
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/ANTHONY DONALD TAYLOR JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747