DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
This final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 01/13/2026. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are examined and pending. Claims 2 and 13 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 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, 3-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (US 20210108926 A1) in view of Mielenz (US 20200201341 A1) in view of Russel et al (US 20190193733 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Tran discloses a method comprising: generating, by one or more processors, a trajectory for an autonomous vehicle to traverse in order to follow a route to a destination (see at least [0072], [0114], and [0135]); identifying, by the one or more processors, an area through which the trajectory traverses (see at least [0069], [0072], [0112], [0114], and [0135]); determining, by the one or more processors, a reasonable penetration of the autonomous vehicle into the area based on the trajectory (see at least [0124]);
However, Tran do not specifically disclose determining a closest distance between the autonomous vehicle and an edge of the area according to the trajectory; and controlling, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle in an autonomous driving mode according to the trajectory based on the determined closest distance.
Mielenz teaches determining a closest distance between the autonomous vehicle and an edge of the area according to the trajectory (see at least [0020], [0041-0044], and [0061-0063], Mielenz teaches determining or calculating how much to use of the area 103 which could be a sidewalk and as described in paragraphs 0061-0063 the vehicle can not pass exclusively using the area 103 and therefore at least partially of the area is used (at least used with two wheels of the vehicle), this implicitly teaches, that a distance is being maintained from an outer boundary of the sidewalk due to vehicle width and bottleneck area.); and controlling, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle in an autonomous driving mode according to the trajectory based on the determined closest distance (see at least [0020], [0041-0044], and [0061-0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Tran, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Mielenz of determining a closest distance between the autonomous vehicle and an edge of the area according to the trajectory; and controlling, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle in an autonomous driving mode according to the trajectory based on the determined closest distance. This would be done to safely locate the vehicle in a final pose taking into account prohibited areas and objects on the prohibited areas (see Mielenz para 0004).
Furthermore, Tran as modified by Mielenz do not specifically teach wherein the area is identified, as one in which the autonomous vehicle should not stop while operating in the autonomous driving mode but may traverse while operating in the autonomous driving mode.
Russel teaches wherein the area is identified, as one in which the autonomous vehicle should not stop while operating in the autonomous driving mode but may traverse while operating in the autonomous driving mode (see at least [0004-0005], [0019], [0026], and [0088], “…a plurality of keep clear regions where the vehicle should not stop but can drive through in the autonomous driving mode…”, “…the default minimum clearance value defines an acceptable amount of overlap with the given keep clear region…”, ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Tran as m modified by Mielenz, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Russel wherein the area is identified, as one in which the autonomous vehicle should not stop while operating in the autonomous driving mode but may traverse while operating in the autonomous driving mode. This would be done to promote the safe operation of a vehicle in an autonomous driving mode by avoiding stopping in regions through which the vehicle is otherwise permitted to travel (see Russel para 0027).
With respect to claim 3, Tran as modified by Mielenz do not specifically teach identifying the area as one in which the autonomous vehicle should not stop while operating in the autonomous driving mode but may traverse while operating in the autonomous driving mode from predefined map information.
Russel teaches identifying the area as one in which the autonomous vehicle should not stop while operating in the autonomous driving mode but may traverse while operating in the autonomous driving mode from predefined map information (see at least [0004-0005], [0019], [0020-0023], [0026], [0037-0043], and [0088], “…the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode along a route using pre-stored map information identifying a plurality of keep clear regions where the vehicle should not stop but can drive through in the autonomous driving mod…”, “…a plurality of keep clear regions where the vehicle should not stop but can drive through in the autonomous driving mode…”, “…the default minimum clearance value defines an acceptable amount of overlap with the given keep clear region…”, ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Tran as m modified by Mielenz, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Russel of identifying the area as one in which the autonomous vehicle should not stop while operating in the autonomous driving mode but may traverse while operating in the autonomous driving mode from predefined map information. This would be done to promote the safe operation of a vehicle in an autonomous driving mode by avoiding stopping in regions through which the vehicle is otherwise permitted to travel (see Russel para 0027).
With respect to claim 4, Tran discloses wherein the area is defined as a line having a pair of endpoints (see at least [0069], [0072], [0112], [0114], [0124], [0135], and [0137-0143]).
With respect to claim 5, Tran discloses wherein the area is defined as a polygon having three or more edges (see at least [0117], [0122], [0144], and [0183]).
With respect to claim 6, Tran discloses wherein the area is identified by the autonomous vehicle in real time (see at least [0075-0076]).
With respect to claim 7, Tran discloses wherein the area includes a railroad crossing (see at least [0124] and [Claim 10]).
With respect to claim 8, Tran discloses wherein the area includes a crosswalk (see at least [0074], [0109], [0124], [0140], and [0177]).
With respect to claim 9, Tran discloses wherein the area includes an intersection (see at least [0137-0138], [0141-0142], and [0144-0145]).
With respect to claim 10, Tran discloses wherein the area includes a lane of traffic (see at least [0014], [0074], [0077], and [0140]).
With respect to claim 11, Tran discloses wherein the area includes a no stopping zone (see at least [0074], [0109], [0115], [0122], and [0140]).
With respect to claims 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, they are system claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. As such, claims 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 20, Tran discloses the system comprising the autonomous vehicle (see at least [0027], [0066], and [0119]).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in the office action. Accordingly, 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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights