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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Office action is responsive to the communication filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 on November 24, 2025 (hereafter “Response”). The amendments to the claims and the specification are acknowledged and have been entered.
Claims 1, 12, 15, and 16 are now amended.
New claims 17 and 18 are now added.
Claims 1–18 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The objections to the specification and claims are hereby withdrawn, responsive to the amendments correcting most of the informalities, other than the numbering of claims. The claims will be renumbered, if the application ever reaches condition for allowance.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is hereby withdrawn, in response to the Applicant removing the indefinite subject matter from the claim.
Claims 1–12 and 14–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0197862 A1 (“Gud”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0293856 A1 (“Foessel”). The Applicant’s traversal of the rejection has been considered, but is not persuasive.
The Applicant first contends that the references “fail[] to disclose”1 the step of “outputting a control signal to execute a safety maneuver based on the safety zone being located at least partly outside the safe travel corridor.” (Response 13). However, the Applicant’s argument for this contention is that it cannot find which part of Gud is mapped to the safety zone for that particular recitation of “safety zone” in the claim (See Response 13–14).
Respectfully, if the mapping is unclear, it is only because the Applicant is attempting to isolate a single method step from the rest of the claim, and a single finding from the rest of the rejection. Claim 1 requires a check of whether the safety zone is located entirely within the safe travel corridor, and outputting a control signal to execute a safety maneuver based on the safety zone being located partially outside the safe travel corridor.
Gud likewise teaches checking whether portions of a reference path 320 (the safety zone—which the Applicant ultimately identifies as the correct mapping in its Response) fall outside safe deviation corridor 550 (the safe travel corridor), and based on those portions being located partially outside safe deviation corridor 550, amending those deviations to produce an amended path 620—which the electronic device 210 uses to provide an appropriate control signal to the vehicle. Amended path 620 and its corresponding control signals are based on portions of the reference path 320 being outside of the safe deviation corridor 500, much like the Applicant’s control signal is output based on the safety zone being located outside of the safe travel corridor.
Moreover, the mapping of the safety zone to the linear “reference path 320” is a reasonable interpretation of the safety zone, because the presence of a two-dimensional safety zone (or one that otherwise has width) in the dependent claims (e.g., claim 8 and now also newly added claim 18) raises a presumption that those limitations are not part of the parent independent claim 1. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.”).
The Applicant then attempts to argue that there was a shift in the mapping of the safety zone in the rejection of claim 8. This is not true, but even if it were true, such an argument would only be applicable to the rejection of claim 8, not the rejection of claim 1. In other words, even if the Examiner had shifted the mapping in claim 8, such a shift fails to explain why the original mapping in claim 1 would also fall with claim 8.
Moreover, no such shift was made. Claims 1 and 8 (among others) are rejected over the combination of Gud with Foessel. Gud teaches a safety zone that consists of a single line, and Foessel teaches why it would be a good idea to expand that safety zone to further include the width of the vehicle. The invention of claim 8, which involves a safety zone that has a width corresponding to the ego vehicle, is obvious over this combination for the reasons given in the rejection.
Therefore, while the Examiner agrees that the rejection of claim 8 would be more clear without the side-by-side presentation of Gud and Foessel’s respectively combined teachings, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive of an error in the merits of the rejection. All grounds of rejection are maintained, but the quote from Gud will be removed from the rejection of claim 8 for clarity, while keeping the quote from Foessel unchanged.
Claim Objections
The Office objects to claim 12 for having the following informality: the amendment erroneously deletes the conjunction (“and”) that connects the two “wherein” clauses.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
I. Gud and Foessel teach claims 1–12 and 14–16.
Claim(s) 1–12 and 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0197862 A1 (“Gud”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0293856 A1 (“Foessel”).
Claim 1
Gud teaches:
A method for controlling an ego vehicle, comprising the following steps:
Gud provides an electronic device 210 that is “configured to execute a method 700 of amending [a] reference path 320 associated with the vehicle 220.” Gud ¶ 198 (referring to both the flowchart of FIG. 7 and the diagrams shown in FIGS. 3–6).
receiving map data of a map representation of an environment of the ego vehicle,
“The method 700 begins at step 702 with the electronic device 210 configured to acquire [] road segment data and [] reference path data.” Gud ¶ 199.
the map data of the map representation mapping at least one roadway along which the ego vehicle is traveling;
“The road segment data is indicative of constraints of the road segment 302.” Gud ¶ 199. “For example, the physical constraints of the road segment 302 may include one or more radii of the road segment 302 (e.g., that can be used to parametrized the turn associated with the road segment 302), one or more distances (such as widths and/or lengths, for example) associated with portions of the road segment 302, one or more positions (such as positions of various objects and/or boundaries, for example) associated with the road segment 302, one or more angles associated with the road segment 302, and the like.” Gud ¶ 140.
ascertaining a safe travel corridor for the ego vehicle based on the map data of the map representation,
Next, as part of step 704, the electronic device 210 generates a “safe deviation corridor 550.” Gud ¶ 203. As shown in FIG. 5, the safe deviation corridor 550 “defines a section of the lane 304 (e.g., of the road segment 302) in which the vehicle 220 falls within the constraints of the road segment 302 [so long as] the vehicle 220 travels in the safe deviation corridor 550.” Gud ¶ 159.
the safe travel corridor describing a spatial area through which the ego vehicle may travel without collision, and the safe travel corridor being bounded at least by boundaries of the roadway;
“It should be noted that a given safe deviation interval for a given anchor point is indicative of an acceptable deviation of the vehicle 220 from the reference path 320, as explained above, such that if the vehicle 220 is located within the given safe deviation interval the vehicle 220 falls within the constraints of the road segment 302.” Gud ¶ 202.
ascertaining a safety zone of the ego vehicle based on a state of movement of the ego vehicle, the safety zone defining a spatial area in which the ego vehicle may be
“[T]he electronic device 210 may be configured to generate the reference path 320 by defining a plurality of anchor points (not numbered) along the road segment 302. As illustrated, the plurality of anchor points includes a first anchor point 321, a second anchor point 322, a third anchor point 323, and a fourth anchor point 324 along the road segment 302.” Gud ¶ 150.
checking whether, when the ego vehicle is traveling along a travel trajectory, the safety zone is located entirely within the safe travel corridor;
“The method 700 continues to step 706 with the electronic device 210 configured to use the safe deviation intervals to determine the amended path 620 for the vehicle 220 instead of the reference path 320, such that by following the amended path 620 the vehicle 220 falls within the constraints of the road segment 302. It should be noted that the amended path 620 falls within the safe deviation corridor 550.” Gud ¶ 207. Note that this falls within the scope of “checking” because the act of amending the reference path 320 includes a determination of whether or not each respective anchor point 321–324 of reference path 320 falls within the safe deviation corridor 550 or not, and amending based on that decision. See Gud ¶¶ 207–208.
and outputting a control signal to execute a safety maneuver based on the safety zone being located at least partly outside the safe travel corridor.
“In some embodiments of the present technology, the electronic device 210 may also be configured to generate operation-control data for controlling operation of the vehicle 220, and where the operation-control data represents computer commands for the vehicle 220 to follow the amended path 620 along the road segment 302.” Gud ¶ 210.
Gud does not appear to explicitly define its reference path 320 in terms of whether or not the vehicle is able to safely stop within that region.
ascertaining a safety zone of the ego vehicle based on a state of movement of the ego vehicle, the safety zone defining a spatial area in which the ego vehicle may be safely brought to a stop in the state of movement;
After first determining a reaction distance and a deceleration distance in a prior step, “a safety guidance module 20 or data processor 12 determines a safety zone (e.g., associated with a safety zone grid) based on . . . the determined reaction distance, and the deceleration distance,” the latter of which includes a “vehicular stopping distance.” Foessel ¶ 31. “The vehicular reaction distance may be determined as function of vehicle speed, vehicle velocity, maximum speed, maximum velocity, actual speed, or desired speed.” Foessel ¶ 34.
and outputting a control signal to execute a safety maneuver based on the safety zone
“In step S110, a vehicle controller 24 controls a vehicular speed or vehicular velocity consistent with the safety zone (e.g., safety grid or occupancy grid).” Foessel ¶ 47.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Gud’s reference path 320 by expanding it to include the safety zone taught by Foessel (or substituting one for the other). One would have been motivated to improve Gud with Foessel because mere “position data” (such as the reference path 320) “does not provide a convenient or reliable procedure for determining quantitative safeguarding requirements or other defined safeguarding requirements applicable to navigation control of the vehicle.” Foessel ¶ 2.
Claim 2
Gud and Foessel teach the method as recited in claim 1, and each of those references teach one or more of the following additional safety maneuvers mentioned in claim 2, including:
performing an emergency stop, where the ego vehicle, deviating from a planned travel trajectory, is brought to a safe stop; and/or
“Although the method is well suited for providing smooth or gradual adjustments to the controlled speed of a vehicle based on sensor data, the method may be applied to institute abrupt stops or deceleration to avoid collisions between the vehicle and the obstacle.” Foessel ¶ 48.
performing a speed reduction deviating from a planned travel trajectory of the ego vehicle, the speed reduction being performed in such a way that the safety zone is located entirely within the safe travel corridor; and/or
“If the cells within its path are not traversable safely at the current vehicular speed, vehicular velocity, or at the current velocity and acceleration, then the vehicular controller sends a control signal to slow down or reduce the current velocity of the vehicle.” Foessel ¶ 47.
performing a steering movement deviating from the planned travel trajectory of the ego vehicle, the steering movement being performed in such a way that the safety zone is located entirely within the safe travel corridor.
“In some embodiments of the present technology, the electronic device 800 may be configured to determine an amended path . . . such that the amended path falls within the safety deviation corridor.” Gud ¶ 26.
Claim 3
Gud, as combined with Foessel, teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein,
by way of an object recognition performed on surround sensor data of at least one surround sensor of the ego vehicle, at least one static object located at least partly on the roadway is recognized, the safe travel corridor being bounded by the at least one static object located at least partly on the roadway.
“In a second scenario, the electronic device 800 may be configured to determine a predicted path for dynamic objects in the surroundings of the SDC.” Gud ¶ 28. “In this second scenario, the dynamic object tracker 808 may receive data, from the perception module 812, for example, in respect to detected objects moving on the neighbor lanes.” Gud ¶ 29. “In such a case, developers of the present technology have devised methods and systems where the reference path calculation module 802 is configured to determine amended paths that follow the assumption that the normal behaviour of dynamic objects is to follow a default reference path that falls within the boundaries of the respective lanes.” Gud ¶ 32.
It is also noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “static object” “includes infrastructure objects,” according to dependent claim 12. See Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F. 4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“if a dependent claim reads on a particular embodiment of the claimed invention, the corresponding independent claim must cover that embodiment as well.”). To that end, Gud at least teaches that “[t]he road segment data is indicative of constraints of the road segment 302,” Gud ¶ 199, and that “the physical constraints of the road segment 302 may include one or more radii of the road segment 302 (e.g., that can be used to parametrized the turn associated with the road segment 302), one or more distances (such as widths and/or lengths, for example) associated with portions of the road segment 302, one or more positions (such as positions of various objects and/or boundaries, for example) associated with the road segment 302, one or more angles associated with the road segment 302, and the like.” Gud ¶ 140.
Foessel similarly provides, in an overlapping teaching, that the safety zone is based on a “safety zone grid” that Foessel ascertains as part of its known method. See Foessel ¶ 31. Notably, Foessel’s data processor 12 calculates this “safety zone grid” by using its sensor readings to determine which cells of spaces surrounding the vehicle are occupied by a potential obstacle. Foessel ¶ 28.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Gud’s reference path 320 by expanding it to include the safety zone taught by Foessel (or substituting one for the other). One would have been motivated to improve Gud with Foessel because mere “position data” (such as the reference path 320) “does not provide a convenient or reliable procedure for determining quantitative safeguarding requirements or other defined safeguarding requirements applicable to navigation control of the vehicle.” Foessel ¶ 2.
Claim 4
Gud and Foessel teach the method as recited in claim 3, wherein,
by way of the object recognition performed on the surround sensor data of the at least one surround sensor of the ego vehicle, at least one prevailing traffic regulation is recognized, the safe travel corridor being bounded by the at least one recognized prevailing traffic regulation.
“It should be noted that the constraints of the road segment 302 may take many forms and, as such, may comprise at least one of (i) physical constraints on the road segment, and (ii) road rule constraints on the road segment 302.” Gud ¶ 139 (emphasis added). With respect to (ii), “road rule constraints of the road segment 302 may include one or more road rules that regulate traffic on the road segment 302. For example, the road rule constraints may include road signs, one or more lane lines, and the like. In some non-limiting embodiments of the present technology, it is contemplated that data indicative of the road rule constraints may be acquired by the electronic device 210 from the sensor system 230 and/or from the server 235, as explained above.” Gud ¶ 141.
Claim 5
Gud and Foessel teach the method as recited in claim 3, further comprising the following steps:
ascertaining an extended safety zone based on the state of movement of the ego vehicle and having regard to an object movement model for dynamic objects,
“[T]he reference path calculation module 802 is configured to determine amended paths that follow the assumption that the normal behaviour of dynamic objects is to follow a default reference path that falls within the boundaries of the respective lanes” Gud ¶ 32. This amended path is meant to both conform to the movement of the SDC, see Gud ¶ 23, and avoid collision with the dynamic objects (per paragraph 32).
the object movement model including a description of an average movement of dynamic objects located in the environment of the ego vehicle,
As mentioned above, Gud describes the dynamic objects’ movement model as “the normal behaviour” assumed for the dynamic objects that the dynamic objects are “to follow a default reference path.” Gud ¶ 32.
the extended safety zone defining a spatial area in which the ego vehicle in the state of movement may be brought
The process of amending the reference path avoids “unsafe situations by amending a default reference path of the SDC on the turning lane and thereby determining an amended path that the SDC ought to follow in the turning lane in order to fall within the constraints of the road segment (e.g., boundaries of the lane).” Gud ¶ 14.
checking whether a dynamic object located in the environment of the ego vehicle is located within the extended safety zone; and
“In some cases, the dynamic objects tracker may be configured to detect when the position of the dynamic object relating to the center line of the respective lane increases, and as a result, determine that the dynamic object is attempting a lane-changing maneuver. Data indicative of such determination by the dynamic object tracker 808 may be transmitted to the reference path calculation module 802.” Gud ¶ 31.
outputting the control signal to execute a safety maneuver based on the safety zone being located at least partly outside the safe travel corridor and/or based on at least one dynamic object being located in the extended safety zone.
Gud at least teaches the first half of the above “and/or” statement (and therefore meets the requirements of the whole limitation) by disclosing “the electronic device 210 may also be configured to generate operation-control data for controlling operation of the vehicle 220, and where the operation-control data represents computer commands for the vehicle 220 to follow the amended path 620 along the road segment 302.” Gud ¶ 210.
As mentioned above, and also in the rejection of claim 1, Gud does not explicitly define its versions of the safety zone or extended safety zone (the path and the amended path) as an area where the vehicle may be safely brought to a stop.
Foessel, however, teaches a method further comprising:
ascertaining an extended safety zone based on the state of movement of the ego vehicle and having regard to an object movement model for dynamic objects,
“In step S109, a safety guidance module 20 or data processor 12 determines a safety zone (e.g., safety zone grid) based on the occupancy grid or matrix, the determined reaction distance, the deceleration distance (e.g., stopping distance), safety margin area (e.g., the first safety margin area, and the second safety margin area).” Foessel ¶ 41. Importantly, this new safety zone is a different safety zone from the one mentioned in claim 1, at least because it further includes the safety margin. Additionally, “the safety zone dynamically expands with an increase in vehicular speed and contracts with a corresponding decrease in vehicular speed.” Foessel ¶ 45.
the object movement model including a description of an average movement of dynamic objects located in the environment of the ego vehicle,
As mentioned above, one of the factors that influence the size of the safety zone includes the occupancy grid or matrix, the cells of which each track “the probability that one or more obstacles exist in an observation region.” Foessel ¶ 42. Specifically, the cells may be characterized by the formula “PTest = (1–PE)PO, where PTest is the probability that one or more obstacles exist at a particular cell in the observation region, where PE is the probability of emptiness of the particular cell in the observation region, and PO is the probability of occupancy of the particular cell in the observation region.” Foessel ¶ 44.
the extended safety zone defining a spatial area in which the ego vehicle in the state of movement may be brought to a stop without colliding with a dynamic object
“[T]he safety zone may be formed of concentric rings or regions about the vehicle. With regards to such regions, the first region has a radial measurement associated with a reaction distance; a second region has a radial measurement associated with a deceleration distance or stopping distance, and a third region, if present, has a radial measurement defined by a user as a supplemental safety margin distance.” Foessel ¶ 45.
checking whether a dynamic object located in the environment of the ego vehicle is located within the extended safety zone; and
“In one configuration, the vehicle controller 24 determines whether or not cells within its path are traversable safely at the current vehicular speed, the current velocity, or at the current velocity and current acceleration without violating any safety zone associated with the vehicle.
outputting the control signal to execute a safety maneuver based on the safety zone being located at least partly outside the safe travel corridor and/or based on at least one dynamic object being located in the extended safety zone.
“If the cells within its path are not traversable safely at the current vehicular speed, vehicular velocity, or at the current velocity and acceleration, then the vehicular controller sends a control signal to slow down or reduce the current velocity of the vehicle.” Foessel ¶ 47.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Gud’s reference path 320 by expanding it to include the safety zone taught by Foessel (or substituting one for the other). One would have been motivated to improve Gud with Foessel because mere “position data” (such as the reference path 320) “does not provide a convenient or reliable procedure for determining quantitative safeguarding requirements or other defined safeguarding requirements applicable to navigation control of the vehicle.” Foessel ¶ 2.
Claim 6
Gud and Foessel teach the method as recited in claim 1,
wherein the state of movement is defined at least by an item of position information and/or speed information and/or retardation information relating to a possible retarding power of the ego vehicle,
“The current vehicular velocity may be obtained from a speedometer, an accelerometer or another sensor associated with the vehicle 100. The reaction time and deceleration rate may be measured by actual laboratory or field tests, or estimated based on specifications of the vehicle, for example.” Foessel ¶ 63.
a length of the safety zone oriented in a direction of travel of the ego vehicle corresponding to a distance within which, if an event occurs, the ego vehicle in the state of movement may be brought to a stop by applying a maximum retarding power of the ego vehicle.
As shown in FIG. 7, “primary safety area 102 has a first boundary 701 from the vehicle that is defined by sum of a reaction distance 116 and deceleration distance 118 (e.g., braking or stopping distance) of the vehicle 100. The first boundary 701 of the primary safety area 102 defines a boundary that the vehicle would barely reach if the vehicle were commanded to stop at any given point in time.” Foessel ¶ 60. The deceleration distance, d-B, is defined as “vA2/2aB, where vA is current vehicular velocity, and aB is the maximum deceleration rate.” Foessel ¶ 63.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Gud’s reference path 320 by expanding it to include the safety zone taught by Foessel (or substituting one for the other). One would have been motivated to improve Gud with Foessel because mere “position data” (such as the reference path 320) “does not provide a convenient or reliable procedure for determining quantitative safeguarding requirements or other defined safeguarding requirements applicable to navigation control of the vehicle.” Foessel ¶ 2.
Claim 7
Foessel discloses the method as recited in claim 5,
wherein a length of the extended safety zone oriented in a direction of travel of the ego vehicle and/or a width of the extended safety zone oriented perpendicularly to the direction of travel of the ego vehicle corresponds to a distance within which the ego vehicle in the state of movement may be brought
“[T]he reference path calculation module 802 is configured to determine amended paths that follow the assumption that the normal behaviour of dynamic objects is to follow a default reference path that falls within the boundaries of the respective lanes” Gud ¶ 32. This amended path is meant to both conform to the movement of the SDC, see Gud ¶ 23, and avoid collision with the dynamic objects (per paragraph 32).
The process of amending the reference path avoids “unsafe situations by amending a default reference path of the SDC on the turning lane and thereby determining an amended path that the SDC ought to follow in the turning lane in order to fall within the constraints of the road segment (e.g., boundaries of the lane).” Gud ¶ 14.
As mentioned above, and also in the rejection of claim 1, Gud does not explicitly define its versions of the safety zone or extended safety zone (the path and the amended path) as an area where the vehicle may be safely brought to a stop.
Foessel, however, teaches a similar method, but with the following:
a length of the extended safety zone oriented in a direction of travel of the ego vehicle and/or a width of the extended safety zone oriented perpendicularly to the direction of travel of the ego vehicle corresponds to a distance within which the ego vehicle in the state of movement may be brought to a stop with the maximum retarding power without colliding with an object
As shown in FIG. 7, “primary safety area 102 has a first boundary 701 from the vehicle that is defined by sum of a reaction distance 116 and deceleration distance 118 (e.g., braking or stopping distance) of the vehicle 100. The first boundary 701 of the primary safety area 102 defines a boundary that the vehicle would barely reach if the vehicle were commanded to stop at any given point in time.” Foessel ¶ 60. The deceleration distance, d-B, is defined as “vA2/2aB, where vA is current vehicular velocity, and aB is the maximum deceleration rate.” Foessel ¶ 63.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Gud’s reference path 320 by expanding it to include the safety zone taught by Foessel (or substituting one for the other). One would have been motivated to improve Gud with Foessel because mere “position data” (such as the reference path 320) “does not provide a convenient or reliable procedure for determining quantitative safeguarding requirements or other defined safeguarding requirements applicable to navigation control of the vehicle.” Foessel ¶ 2.
Claim 8
Gud and Foessel teach the method as recited in claim 5,
wherein a width of the safety zone oriented perpendicularly to a travel direction of the ego vehicle and/or a width of the extended safety zone, corresponds at least to a width of the ego vehicle.
“A secondary dimension is associated with the second safety margin area 114 and is generally parallel to the direction of travel of the vehicle.” Foessel ¶ 56. Note that while the length of the safety margin area is parallel to the direction of travel, “[t]he second safety margin area 114 is [also] associated with a primary dimension that is generally perpendicular to the direction of travel of the vehicle 100.” Foessel ¶ 56. As claimed, these “lateral boundaries” of the safety area “may be determined by the physical width of the vehicle 100.” Foessel ¶ 60.
Claim 9
Gud and Foessel teach the method as recited in claim 5,
wherein the safety zone and/or the extended safety zone includes a spatial area immediately in front of and/or behind and/or alongside the ego vehicle in a direction of travel of the ego vehicle.
Due to the Applicant’s use of the term “and/or,” a reference teaches or anticipates the claim language simply by teaching any one of the following (1) the safety zone is immediately in front of the ego vehicle; (2) the safety zone is behind the ego vehicle; (3) the safety zone is alongside the ego vehicle; (4) the extend safety zone is immediately in front of the ego vehicle; (5) the extended safety zone is behind the ego vehicle; (6) the extended safety zone is alongside the ego vehicle; or (7) any combination of any amount of (1)–(6).
Gud teaches at least (1), (4), and (7). See Gud ¶¶ 168 and 180–185.
Foessel teaches all seven alternatives. See Foessel ¶ 38 (“the safety zone may be formed of concentric rings or regions about the vehicle”). That is, the teaching of a first ring falls within the scope of the safety zone as defined by 1–3, and the teaching of an expanded, outer ring teaches the same with respect to 4–6. Naturally, this means that the different combinations in 7 are also taught.
Claim 10
Gud and Foessel teach the method as recited in claim 1,
wherein the state of movement includes an item of steering information relating to a possible steering performance of the ego vehicle, the width of the safety zone being ascertained having regard to a steering inaccuracy of the ego vehicle.
“For instance, the edge of the safety zone may represent the closest distance in which the vehicle can stop, slow down, maneuver or avoid a collision with the obstacle given a set of vehicular handling constraints. Vehicular handling constraints include stopping distance associated with a speed or range of speeds, minimum turning radius, vehicle weight, vehicle width, vehicle size, vehicle center of gravity, vehicle stability, vehicle suspension, and vehicle suspension tuning, among other constraints.” Foessel ¶ 31.
Claim 11
Gud and Foessel teach the method as recited in claim 5,
wherein the checking of the location of the safety zone within the safe travel corridor and/or the checking of the positioning of the dynamic object in the extended safety zone takes place by way of a geometric comparison between a surface area of the safety zone and a surface area of the safe travel corridor and/or by way of a geometric comparison between a surface area of the extended safety zone and a position of the dynamic object.
“The method 700 continues to step 706 with the electronic device 210 configured to use the safe deviation intervals to determine the amended path 620 for the vehicle 220 instead of the reference path 320, such that by following the amended path 620 the vehicle 220 falls within the constraints of the road segment 302. It should be noted that the amended path 620 falls within the safe deviation corridor 550.” Gud ¶ 207. Note that this falls within the scope of “checking” because the act of amending the reference path 320 includes a determination of whether or not each respective anchor point 321–324 of reference path 320 falls within the safe deviation corridor 550 or not, and amending based on that decision. See Gud ¶¶ 207–208.
Claim 12
Gud and Foessel teach the method as recited in claim 5,
wherein the at least one static object includes infrastructure objects and/or parked vehicles and/or temporary objects, wherein the dynamic objects include other road users.
“The road segment data is indicative of constraints of the road segment 302,” Gud ¶ 199, and that “the physical constraints of the road segment 302 may include one or more radii of the road segment 302 (e.g., that can be used to parametrized the turn associated with the road segment 302), one or more distances (such as widths and/or lengths, for example) associated with portions of the road segment 302, one or more positions (such as positions of various objects and/or boundaries, for example) associated with the road segment 302, one or more angles associated with the road segment 302, and the like.” Gud ¶ 140.
Claim 14
Gud and Foessel teach the method as recited in claim 1,
wherein the surround sensor data include camera data and/or LiDAR data and/or radar data and/or acoustic data.
“According to these embodiments, the sensor system 230 may comprise a plurality of sensors allowing for various implementations of the present technology. Examples of the plurality of sensors include but are not limited to: cameras, LIDAR sensors, and RADAR sensors, etc. The sensor system 230 is operatively coupled to the processor 110 for transmitting the so-captured information to the processor 110 for processing thereof, as will be described in greater detail herein below.” Gud ¶ 109.
Claims 15 and 16
Claim 15 is directed to a “processing unit” configured to perform exactly the same method as set forth in claim 1. Gud and Foessel teach that method for the reasons given in claim 1, and further teach that such a method may be performed by a processing unit, such as “electronic device 210” in Gud’s disclosure. See Gud ¶¶ 109, 128–130, and 134–135.
Claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium programmed exactly the same way as the processing unit of claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above for claim 15.
Claim 17
Claim 17 has two portions: (1) everything it incorporates from its parent claim 12 by reference, and (2) a further description of one of the alternative elements recited in parent claim 12.
In other words, since claim 17 incorporates the text of claim 12 by reference, see 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), claim 17 should be read as follows:
The method of claim 5, wherein the at least one static object includes infrastructure objects and/or parked vehicles and/or temporary objects, wherein the temporary objects include garbage containers or lost cargo and/or vehicle parts, wherein the dynamic objects include other road users.
As was discussed in the rejection of claim 12, the prior art at least teaches the “infrastructure objects” element, which is one of among several alternatives enumerated in the claim. See Gud ¶ 199 (“The road segment data is indicative of constraints of the road segment 302”); ¶ 140 (“the physical constraints of the road segment 302 may include one or more radii of the road segment 302 (e.g., that can be used to parametrized the turn associated with the road segment 302), one or more distances (such as widths and/or lengths, for example) associated with portions of the road segment 302, one or more positions (such as positions of various objects and/or boundaries, for example) associated with the road segment 302, one or more angles associated with the road segment 302, and the like.”).
Since the prior art teaches at least the infrastructure objects—which are one of the alternatives expressed in the claim (the broadest reasonable interpretation of “and/or” includes “or”)—the prior art does not need further disclose, teach, or suggest the temporary objects in order to fall within the scope of the claim language. As such, the prior art also does not need to teach or suggest claim 17’s further description of one of the three alternatives for the claimed static objects, since the requirements of the claim are already met via the teaching of infrastructure objects (the road boundaries). See MPEP § 2111.04 (“Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.”).
Claim 18
Gud and Foessel teach the method as recited in claim 1,
wherein the safety zone spans a two-dimensional area,
The second safety margin area 114 is associated with a primary dimension that is generally perpendicular to the direction of travel of the vehicle 100. A secondary dimension is associated with the second safety margin area 114 and is generally parallel to the direction of travel of the vehicle.
and wherein the safety zone is located at least partly outside the safe travel corridor when at least a portion of the two-dimensional area of the safety zone is located beyond the boundaries of the roadway.
“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” MPEP § 2111.04. In this case, claim 18 is a method claim with the contingent limitation of “the safety zone is located at least partly outside the safe travel corridor,” and whose condition precedent of “when at least a portion of the two-dimensional area of the safety zone is located beyond the boundaries of the roadway”2 is unmet. That is, there is never a step in the method claim that requires the portion of the 2D area of the safety zone to be located beyond the boundaries in at least one instance/run of the method. Consequently, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 18 is that the safety zone is not required to ever protrude the safe travel corridor, and “the Examiner [does] not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the method steps . . . that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.” MPEP § 2111.04 (quoting Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential)).
II. Gud, Foessel, and Beller teach claim 13.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gud and Foessel as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0094539 A1 (“Beller”).
Claim 13
Gud and Foessel teach the method as recited in claim 5, and while both of those references classify objects around their respective vehicles and attempt to forecast their movement, neither explicitly discloses whether “at least one static object is classified as a potentially dynamic object, and wherein for the potentially dynamic object a probability of a dynamic behavior of the object at a future point in time is not equal to zero.”
Beller, however, teaches a vehicle computing system that calculates potential movements of objects visible in the sensor data, wherein:
at least one static object is classified as a potentially dynamic object,
“In some examples, a vehicle computing system may detect the object at a location and determine that the location is at least partially in the path of the vehicle. The vehicle computing system may determine whether to wait for the object to move out of the path or to modify the trajectory of the vehicle to navigate around the object based on a likelihood that the object will continue to block the path.” Beller ¶ 10.
and wherein for the potentially dynamic object a probability of a dynamic behavior of the object at a future point in time is not equal to zero.
“In some examples, the vehicle computing system may determine that a likelihood that the object will move out of the path of the vehicle is at or above a threshold likelihood (e.g., 50%, 60%, etc.).” Beller ¶ 17.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Gud and Foessel’s respective self-driving systems with the same known technique that Beller used to improve its vehicle computing system, i.e., by classifying static objects (pedestrians) in a scene, and assigning a probability as to the likelihood of their future movement. One would have been motivated to improve Gud and Foessel with Beller’s technique because “traditional planning systems may actually prevent the vehicle from operating safely in the environment (as such operations may cause secondary collisions) and may greatly impede vehicle progress.” Beller ¶ 1.
Conclusion
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 Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 The Applicant is reminded that, unlike an anticipation rejection, obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on what the references teach or suggest, and not merely what they “disclose.”
2 The word “when” is considered to be conditional language. See, e.g., Ex Parte Rebstock, PTAB Appeal No. 2014-001247 (April 7, 2017) (non-precedential).
Prosecution Insights