DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action regarding application number 18/364,830, filed August 3, 2023, is in response to the applicants arguments and amendments filed 3/10/2026. Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 3/10/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The applicants arguments and amendments to the application have overcome some of the objections previously set forth in the Final action mailed January 8, 2026. Applicants amendments to the drawings have been deemed sufficient to overcome the previous objections through the inclusion of descriptive text labels, therefore the objections are withdrawn. Applicants amendments to the claims have been deemed sufficient to render the previous interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) moot through the removal of the “module” language, therefore the interpretation is withdrawn.
However, Applicants amendments to claims 1, 8 and 15 have NOT been deemed sufficient to overcome the previous 35 USC 103 rejections, therefore the rejections are maintained with changes to reflect amendments. Additionally the applicants arguments have been fully considered but are not fully persuasive for the reasons seen below.
On pages 12-13 the applicant argues “Nabbe merely teaches a remote control system 260 that is remote from a vehicle that is used for direct driving control of the vehicle through driving control interfaces operated by a human operator, which is different from the remote station system of the present claims. Specifically, in Nabbe, an operator interacts with interface 620 to generate driving commands, and a navigation system 266 generates remote driving commands based on those operator interactions. These remote driving commands in Nabbe are direct actuation-type commands (e.g., steering, braking, acceleration), not trajectory commands comprising trajectory plot points with position coordinates for the vehicle to be at specific times. For at least these reasons, Nabbe fails to teach or suggest a remote station system that generates a remote trajectory command comprising one or more driving actions based on trajectory plot points with position coordinates, as recited in the present claims. The Examiner further cites Sandberg in the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Sandberg teaches planning and validation systems 168, including a first planning system 620 and a second planning system 630 and a validation system 610. However, critically, both planning systems 620 and 630 in Sandberg are located onboard the autonomous vehicle 100 as part of the vehicle's computing devices 110. Sandberg is silent as to a remote station system that is located remotely from the vehicle and that generates a remote trajectory command. Sandberg is entirely directed to onboard trajectory validation, not remote trajectory generation.”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2142-2144 discusses the requirements for a case of obviousness using 35 USC 103 and provides examples of such cases. MPEP 2111 discusses Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and the interpretation of claims.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, as is discussed in the rejections below, the rejection is based on the combination of both the Nabbe and Sandberg references. In particular here Nabbe is teaches a system that is remote from the vehicle which transmits control signals to the vehicle (Paragraph [0005], “the remote control system can generate remote driving commands which cause the vehicle to be navigated to a particular location without requiring the occupant associated with the health emergency to manually navigate the vehicle”). While Nabbe does not explicitly teach wherein the automatic trajectory command comprises automatic trajectory instructions which comprise one or more automatic trajectory plot points, this limitation is taught by Sandberg.
Sandberg teaches wherein the automatic trajectory command comprises automatic trajectory instructions which comprise one or more automatic trajectory plot points (Paragraph [0067], “Each planned trajectory may provide a planned path and other instructions for an autonomous vehicle to follow for some brief period of time into the future, such as 10 seconds or more or less. In this regard, the trajectories may define the specific characteristics of acceleration, deceleration, speed, direction, etc. to allow the vehicle to follow the route towards reaching a destination location. A control system software module of computing devices 110 may be configured to control movement of the vehicle, for instance by controlling braking, acceleration and steering of the vehicle, in order to follow a trajectory.”) (See also figures 8-12 showing generated trajectory plot points).
Here the system of controlling the vehicle remotely of Nabbe is being combined with the system of generating an automatic trajectory command of Sandberg with a reasonable expectation of success, through a simple substitution of the origin of the control commands being transmitted by Nabbe.
Therefore the combination of Nabbe and Sandberg teaches a remote station system that generates a remote trajectory command comprising one or more driving actions based on trajectory plot points with position coordinates. The rejection under 35 USC 103 is maintained.
On pages 14-15 the applicant argues “First, the Examiner cites paragraph [0059] of Sandberg against the claim limitation that "each automatic trajectory plot point ... comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time." However, paragraph [0059] of Sandberg is explicitly directed to behavior predictions for other detected objects, not trajectory commands for the vehicle itself. Specifically, paragraph [0055] of Sandberg describes that the perception system detects objects external to the vehicle, paragraph [0058] describes the characteristics of those detected objects, and paragraph [0059] states that the characteristics of those detected objects "may be input into a behavior modeling system software module . . . which uses various behavior models based on object type to output one or more behavior predictions or predicted trajectories for a detected object to follow into the future. … The claims recite position coordinates for the vehicle (i.e., the host autonomous vehicle) to be at a specific time, as part of the vehicle's own automatic trajectory command. Sandberg's paragraph [0059] describes predictions about where other road users (vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists) will be, and not position coordinates defining where the vehicle itself should be positioned at a given time.”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2142-2144 discusses the requirements for a case of obviousness using 35 USC 103 and provides examples of such cases. MPEP 2111 discusses Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and the interpretation of claims.
As discussed in the rejections below Nabbe teaches a system for controlling a vehicle including automatically generate an automatic trajectory command based on the one or more data points generated from the one or more sensors (Paragraph [0026], "The VNS, in some embodiments, includes an autonomous navigation system (ANS) which is configured to autonomously generate autonomous driving control commands which control various control elements of the vehicle to autonomously navigate the vehicle along one or more driving routes."); generate driving actions based on a trajectory (Paragraph [0031], “As used herein, autonomous navigation of the vehicle 100 refers to controlled navigation (“driving”) of vehicle 100 along at least a portion of a route based upon autonomous driving control, by VNS 110, of the control elements 112 of the vehicle 100, including steering control elements, throttle control elements, braking control elements, transmission control elements, etc.”).
However while Nabbe does not explicitly teach wherein the automatic trajectory command comprises automatic trajectory instructions which comprise one or more automatic trajectory plot points, and each automatic trajectory plot point, of the one or more automatic trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time.
Sandberg teaches automatic trajectory instructions which comprise one or more automatic trajectory plot points; each of these trajectories may comprise time steps/points (Paragraph [0002], “trajectory may be generated by a planning system of an autonomous vehicle in order to enable the autonomous vehicle to use the trajectory for some brief period of time in order to follow a route to a destination. Such trajectories may include those that can be expressed as a function of time”); and each automatic trajectory plot point, of the one or more automatic trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time (Paragraph [0067], “Each planned trajectory may provide a planned path and other instructions for an autonomous vehicle to follow for some brief period of time into the future, such as 10 seconds or more or less. In this regard, the trajectories may define the specific characteristics of acceleration, deceleration, speed, direction, etc. to allow the vehicle to follow the route towards reaching a destination location.“). Here the trajectory is generated by the planning system as a series of positions and orientations as well as other predicted characteristics which can be expressed as a function of time. Further each of the listed positions and orientations with other predicted characteristics include speed, acceleration and deceleration which each are by definition functions of time, for example if a predicted position includes a predicted speed and acceleration the system it is known at what time a vehicle will be a next predicted position with its associated speed and acceleration; here the planning systems defined by the reference may plan in space and time simultaneously (Paragraph [0064], “The planning system 630 may be different from the planning system 620. In some instances, these planning systems may be significantly different, such that they utilize different planning processes such as independently planning in space (geometry) and then in time (speed plan) as compared to simultaneously planning in space and time. In other instances, these planning systems may be only minorly different, such as by utilizing different versions of the same software (e.g., an updated version to address a particular situation of concern could have unexpected effects in other situations).”).
Therefore the combination of Nabbe and Sandberg teaches wherein the automatic trajectory command comprises automatic trajectory instructions which comprise one or more automatic trajectory plot points, and each automatic trajectory plot point, of the one or more automatic trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time. The rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
On pages 14-15 the applicant argues “Second, the Examiner also relies on paragraph [0067] of Sandberg, which describes the vehicle's own planned trajectory. However, paragraph [0067] of Sandberg states that the trajectories "define the specific characteristics of acceleration, deceleration, speed, direction, etc. to allow the vehicle to follow the route towards reaching a destination location." Notably, paragraph [0067] describes kinematic parameters-acceleration, deceleration, speed, and direction, but does not disclose trajectory plot points that comprise position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time. There is a fundamental difference between a trajectory defined by kinematic parameters (acceleration, speed, direction) and a trajectory defined by discrete position coordinates specifying where the vehicle is to be located at specific times. The present claims require the latter, which Sandberg does not teach. Additionally, in the Final Office Action, the Examiner reasoned that because "speed, acceleration and deceleration . .. are by definition functions of time,""the system it is known at what time a vehicle will be a next predicted position with its associated speed and acceleration." Applicant respectfully submits that this reasoning is insufficient to establish that Sandberg teaches the claimed limitation. The fact that one could theoretically derive a vehicle's position at a given time from kinematic parameters such as speed and acceleration does not mean that Sandberg teaches trajectory plot points that comprise position coordinates for the vehicle at specific times. Sandberg does not disclose trajectory plot points that include position coordinates for the vehicle at specific times. Rather, Sandberg describes trajectories in terms of kinematic parameters such as acceleration, deceleration, speed, and direction.”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2142-2144 discusses the requirements for a case of obviousness using 35 USC 103 and provides examples of such cases. MPEP 2111 discusses Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and the interpretation of claims.
Sandberg teaches automatic trajectory instructions which comprise one or more automatic trajectory plot points; each of these trajectories may comprise time steps/points (Paragraph [0002], “trajectory may be generated by a planning system of an autonomous vehicle in order to enable the autonomous vehicle to use the trajectory for some brief period of time in order to follow a route to a destination. Such trajectories may include those that can be expressed as a function of time”); and each automatic trajectory plot point, of the one or more automatic trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time (Paragraph [0067], “Each planned trajectory may provide a planned path and other instructions for an autonomous vehicle to follow for some brief period of time into the future, such as 10 seconds or more or less. In this regard, the trajectories may define the specific characteristics of acceleration, deceleration, speed, direction, etc. to allow the vehicle to follow the route towards reaching a destination location.“). Here the trajectory is generated by the planning system as a series of positions and orientations as well as other predicted characteristics which can be expressed as a function of time. Further each of the listed positions and orientations with other predicted characteristics include speed, acceleration and deceleration which each are by definition functions of time, for example if a predicted position includes a predicted speed and acceleration the system it is known at what time a vehicle will be a next predicted position with its associated speed and acceleration; the system further teaches that the vehicle generates trajectories using a previous trajectory defining a state of the vehicle including a location (Paragraph [0086], “may then generate a second trajectory based on, or for example starting from the end of, the portion of the first trajectory. For instance, the second trajectory may build off of the portion of the first trajectory and/or the expected state of the autonomous vehicle at the end of the portion 1010 of the first trajectory 910 such that the second trajectory may diverge from the first trajectory after this portion of the first trajectory. In this regard, the expected state may include information such as a location of the autonomous vehicle, orientation of the autonomous vehicle, heading of the autonomous vehicle, deceleration (or acceleration) of the autonomous vehicle, rate of change of deceleration (or acceleration) of the autonomous vehicle, lateral deceleration (or acceleration) values, and so on”) each trajectory is therefore at least defining an initial plot point and an ending plot point at which the next trajectory is started, while the citation of [0067] only lists acceleration, deceleration, speed, direction, etc. the additional context of paragraph [0086] which includes various other data points associated with the trajectory including locations/plot points associated with each trajectory.
Therefore the combination of Nabbe and Sandberg teaches wherein the automatic trajectory command comprises automatic trajectory instructions which comprise one or more automatic trajectory plot points, and each automatic trajectory plot point, of the one or more automatic trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time. The rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabbe (US-20230356692) in view of Sandberg (US-20240017741).
Regarding claim 1, Nabbe teaches a system for controlling a vehicle comprising a vehicle (Paragraph [0005], "Some embodiments provide a vehicle navigation system which can navigate a vehicle through an environment based on driving commands")
one or more sensors, coupled to the vehicle, configured to generate one or more data points pertaining to one or more of: an environment of the vehicle and one or more system component measurements of the vehicle (Paragraph [0033], "Vehicle 100 includes a set of one or more external sensor devices 113, also referred to as external sensors 113, which can monitor one or more aspects of an external environment relative to the vehicle 100. Such sensors can include camera devices, video recording devices, infrared sensor devices, radar devices, depth camera devices which can include one or more light-scanning devices including LIDAR devices")
one or more actuation controls configured to enable the vehicle to perform one or more driving actions (Paragraph [0029], "VNS 110 is communicatively coupled to at least some of the control elements 112 of the vehicle 100 and is configured to control one or more of the elements 112 to navigate the vehicle 100,” here the system uses control elements/actuation controls to enable the vehicle to navigate and perform driving actions)
a controller, comprising a processor, configured to: (See Figure 9, showing processors 910)
automatically generate an automatic trajectory command based on the one or more data points generated from the one or more sensors (Paragraph [0026], "The VNS, in some embodiments, includes an autonomous navigation system (ANS) which is configured to autonomously generate autonomous driving control commands which control various control elements of the vehicle to autonomously navigate the vehicle along one or more driving routes.")
generate driving actions based on a trajectory (Paragraph [0031], “As used herein, autonomous navigation of the vehicle 100 refers to controlled navigation (“driving”) of vehicle 100 along at least a portion of a route based upon autonomous driving control, by VNS 110, of the control elements 112 of the vehicle 100, including steering control elements, throttle control elements, braking control elements, transmission control elements, etc.”)
wherein the one or more driving actions correlate to one or more actuator commands configured to cause the vehicle to be positioned in accordance with the one or more automatic trajectory (Paragraph [0026], "The VNS, in some embodiments, includes an autonomous navigation system (ANS) which is configured to autonomously generate autonomous driving control commands which control various control elements of the vehicle to autonomously navigate the vehicle along one or more driving routes.") (Paragraph [0031], “As used herein, autonomous navigation of the vehicle 100 refers to controlled navigation (“driving”) of vehicle 100 along at least a portion of a route based upon autonomous driving control, by VNS 110, of the control elements 112 of the vehicle 100, including steering control elements, throttle control elements, braking control elements, transmission control elements, etc.”)
and a remote station system, located remotely from the vehicle (Paragraph [0005], “the remote control system can generate remote driving commands which cause the vehicle to be navigated to a particular location without requiring the occupant associated with the health emergency to manually navigate the vehicle”)
configured to receive the one or more data points generated by the one or more sensors (Paragraph [0038], "Module 122 can monitor one or more aspects of the interior and exterior of the vehicle, via sensor data generated by one or more sensors 113-114")
and generate a remote trajectory command comprising one or more driving actions (Paragraph [0036-0037], "VNS 110 includes a set of modules which are configured to enable VNS 110 to cause the vehicle 100 to be navigated through an environment based on remote driving control of the vehicle. Remote driving control can be based on one or more remote driving command signals, also referred to herein as remote driving commands, received at VNS 110 from one or more remote control systems via one or more interfaces 116. VNS 110 includes an remote control request module 122 which determines whether to generate a remote control request signal which, when received at a remotely located remote control system, is processed as a request, by VNS 110, for the remote control system to engage remote driving control of the VNS 110 via one or more interfaces 116.")
wherein the one or more driving actions correlate to one or more actuator commands configured to cause the vehicle to perform the one or more driving actions (Paragraph [0040], "The driving route can be generated at module 124 based on input commands received from an interface 115, data received from one or more interfaces 116, etc. In another example, where VNS 110 is in a remote driving control mode, module 124 can generate control signals based on remote control commands received from a remote control system via one or more interfaces 116.")
and the controller is further configured to determine whether the remote trajectory command is present for a predetermined timeframe (Paragraph [0041], "Module 124 can switch the VNS 110 to a remote driving control mode based on one or more of generation of an remote control request signal at module 122, receipt of one or more remote driving commands from a remote control system via an interface 116, generation of an authorization signal at module 125, receipt of an authorization confirmation signal from a remote control system via an interface 116, some combination thereof, etc," here the system can switch to a remote driving mode based on whether a remote trajectory command is present by detecting receipt of one or more remote driving commands)
when the remote trajectory command is present for the predetermined timeframe (Paragraph [0140], “The remote control device can be configured to deactivate in the absence of receiving a command … within a certain period of elapsed time,” here the remote trajectory is only active when commands are received for a predetermined timeframe/period).
However Nabbe does not explicitly teach wherein the automatic trajectory command comprises automatic trajectory instructions which comprise one or more automatic trajectory plot points, and each automatic trajectory plot point, of the one or more automatic trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time, and generate based on the or more automatic trajectory plot points, one or more driving actions, when the remote trajectory command is present for the predetermined timeframe, determine whether the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command, and when the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command, cause the vehicle, via the one or more actuation controls, to perform the one or more driving actions during the predetermined timeframe in accordance with the remote trajectory command.
Sandberg teaches a vehicle system which uses a plurality of trajectories in order to validate a trajectory and control a vehicle including
wherein the automatic trajectory command comprises automatic trajectory instructions which comprise one or more automatic trajectory plot points (Paragraph [0067], “Each planned trajectory may provide a planned path and other instructions for an autonomous vehicle to follow for some brief period of time into the future, such as 10 seconds or more or less. In this regard, the trajectories may define the specific characteristics of acceleration, deceleration, speed, direction, etc. to allow the vehicle to follow the route towards reaching a destination location. A control system software module of computing devices 110 may be configured to control movement of the vehicle, for instance by controlling braking, acceleration and steering of the vehicle, in order to follow a trajectory.”) (See also figures 8-12 showing generated trajectory plot points)
and each automatic trajectory plot point, of the one or more automatic trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time (Paragraph [0067], “Each planned trajectory may provide a planned path and other instructions for an autonomous vehicle to follow for some brief period of time into the future, such as 10 seconds or more or less. In this regard, the trajectories may define the specific characteristics of acceleration, deceleration, speed, direction, etc. to allow the vehicle to follow the route towards reaching a destination location. “)
and generate based on the or more automatic trajectory plot points, one or more driving actions (Paragraph [0067], “A control system software module of computing devices 110 may be configured to control movement of the vehicle, for instance by controlling braking, acceleration and steering of the vehicle, in order to follow a trajectory.”)
when the remote trajectory command is present for the predetermined timeframe, determine whether the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command (Paragraph [0089], “If the second trajectory would now bring the autonomous vehicle within a threshold distance of a predicted location (according to a behavior prediction generated by the behavior modeling system 176) of another road, the first trajectory may be validated. In this regard, the second trajectory may be used to validate the first trajectory,” here the system is determining if the first trajectory can be validated by comparing the result of the second trajectory to the predicted location of the first trajectory)
and when the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command, cause the vehicle, via the one or more actuation controls, to perform the one or more driving actions during the predetermined timeframe in accordance with the remote trajectory command (Paragraph [0006], “when the first trajectory is determined not to be validated, continuing to generate and use trajectories generated by the second planning system to control the autonomous vehicle until the autonomous vehicle is no longer in a driving situation which caused the second trajectory not to be validated,” here when the first commanded trajectory is not validated/different from the second trajectory, then the system controls the vehicle according to the second trajectory, here while it is not explicitly taught that the first system is onboard the vehicle and the second system is remote, this same methodology of switching from a first trajectory planning system to a second trajectory planning system could reasonably be applied to the autonomous and remote planning systems of Nabbe).
Nabbe and Sandberg are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems for controlling autonomous vehicles according to a planned trajectory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein the automatic trajectory command comprises automatic trajectory instructions which comprise one or more automatic trajectory plot points, and each automatic trajectory plot point, of the one or more automatic trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time, and generate based on the or more automatic trajectory plot points, one or more driving actions, when the remote trajectory command is present for the predetermined timeframe, determine whether the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command, and when the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command, cause the vehicle, via the one or more actuation controls, to perform the one or more driving actions during the predetermined timeframe in accordance with the remote trajectory command of Sandberg in the system for controlling an autonomous vehicle of Nabbe with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the safety of the system by confirming that a first planning system can operate safely (Paragraph [0030], “As such, in each planning iteration, the validation system confirms that the first planning system can plan safely, so that if there is a problem, the validation system can switch the autonomous vehicle to the second planning system even in the worst case.”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nabbe and Sandberg teaches the system as
discussed above in claim 1, Sandberg further teaches wherein the remote trajectory command comprises trajectory instructions which comprise one or more trajectory plot points (Paragraph [0067], “Each planned trajectory may provide a planned path and other instructions for an autonomous vehicle to follow for some brief period of time into the future, such as 10 seconds or more or less. In this regard, the trajectories may define the specific characteristics of acceleration, deceleration, speed, direction, etc. to allow the vehicle to follow the route towards reaching a destination location. A control system software module of computing devices 110 may be configured to control movement of the vehicle, for instance by controlling braking, acceleration and steering of the vehicle, in order to follow a trajectory.”) (See also figures 8-12 showing generated trajectory plot points)
each trajectory plot point, of the one or more trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time (Paragraph [0067], “Each planned trajectory may provide a planned path and other instructions for an autonomous vehicle to follow for some brief period of time into the future, such as 10 seconds or more or less. In this regard, the trajectories may define the specific characteristics of acceleration, deceleration, speed, direction, etc. to allow the vehicle to follow the route towards reaching a destination location. “)
and the one or more driving actions are generated based on the one or more trajectory plot points (Paragraph [0067], “A control system software module of computing devices 110 may be configured to control movement of the vehicle, for instance by controlling braking, acceleration and steering of the vehicle, in order to follow a trajectory.”).
Nabbe and Sandberg are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems for controlling autonomous vehicles according to a planned trajectory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein the remote trajectory command comprises trajectory instructions which comprise one or more trajectory plot points each trajectory plot point, of the one or more trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time and the one or more driving actions are generated based on the one or more trajectory plot points of Sandberg in the system for controlling an autonomous vehicle in the system for controlling an autonomous vehicle of Nabbe with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the safety of the system by confirming that a first planning system can operate safely (Paragraph [0030], “As such, in each planning iteration, the validation system confirms that the first planning system can plan safely, so that if there is a problem, the validation system can switch the autonomous vehicle to the second planning system even in the worst case.”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nabbe and Sandberg teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Sandberg further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to, when the remote trajectory command is present for the predetermined timeframe and is not different from the automatic trajectory command, cause the vehicle, via the one or more actuation controls, to perform the one or more driving actions during the predetermined timeframe in accordance with the automatic trajectory command (Paragraph [0006], “when the first trajectory is determined not to be validated, continuing to generate and use trajectories generated by the second planning system to control the autonomous vehicle until the autonomous vehicle is no longer in a driving situation which caused the second trajectory not to be validated,” here when the first commanded trajectory is validated with the second trajectory, then the system controls the vehicle according to the first trajectory, here while it is not explicitly taught that the first system is onboard the vehicle and the second system is remote, this same methodology of switching from a first trajectory planning system to a second trajectory planning system could reasonably be applied to the autonomous and remote planning systems of Nabbe).
Nabbe and Sandberg are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems for controlling autonomous vehicles according to a planned trajectory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein the controller is further configured to, when the remote trajectory command is present for the predetermined timeframe and is not different from the automatic trajectory command, cause the vehicle, via the one or more actuation controls, to perform the one or more driving actions during the predetermined timeframe in accordance with the automatic trajectory command of Sandberg in the system for controlling an autonomous vehicle in the system for controlling an autonomous vehicle of Nabbe with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the safety of the system by confirming that a first planning system can operate safely (Paragraph [0030], “As such, in each planning iteration, the validation system confirms that the first planning system can plan safely, so that if there is a problem, the validation system can switch the autonomous vehicle to the second planning system even in the worst case.”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nabbe and Sandberg teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Nabbe further teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprise a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensor and a camera (Paragraph [0033], “Such sensors can include camera devices, video recording devices, infrared sensor devices, radar devices, depth camera devices which can include one or more light-scanning devices including LIDAR devices,”)
and the one or more data points comprise a LiDAR point cloud generated by the LiDAR sensor and an image captured by the camera (Paragraph [0114], “Sensor data can include images captured by one or more camera devices”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nabbe and Sandberg teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Nabbe further teaches wherein the remote station system comprises one or more remote actuation controls configured to generate the one or more driving actions of the remote trajectory command (Paragraph [0036-0037], "VNS 110 includes a set of modules which are configured to enable VNS 110 to cause the vehicle 100 to be navigated through an environment based on remote driving control of the vehicle. Remote driving control can be based on one or more remote driving command signals, also referred to herein as remote driving commands, received at VNS 110 from one or more remote control systems via one or more interfaces 116. VNS 110 includes an remote control request module 122 which determines whether to generate a remote control request signal which, when received at a remotely located remote control system, is processed as a request, by VNS 110, for the remote control system to engage remote driving control of the VNS 110 via one or more interfaces 116.").
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Nabbe and Sandberg teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Nabbe further teaches wherein the one or more actuation controls comprise one or more of a brake pedal, an accleration pedal, a gear shift control, and a steering wheel (Paragraph [0031], “As used herein, autonomous navigation of the vehicle 100 refers to controlled navigation (“driving”) of vehicle 100 along at least a portion of a route based upon autonomous driving control, by VNS 110, of the control elements 112 of the vehicle 100, including steering control elements, throttle control elements, braking control elements, transmission control elements, etc. independently of manual driving control input commands receiving from a user of the vehicle via user interaction with one or more user interfaces 115.”).
Regarding claim 8, Nabbe teaches a system for controlling a vehicle comprising a vehicle (Paragraph [0005], "Some embodiments provide a vehicle navigation system which can navigate a vehicle through an environment based on driving commands")
one or more sensors, coupled to the vehicle, configured to generate one or more data points pertaining to one or more of: an environment of the vehicle and one or more system component measurements of the vehicle (Paragraph [0033], "Vehicle 100 includes a set of one or more external sensor devices 113, also referred to as external sensors 113, which can monitor one or more aspects of an external environment relative to the vehicle 100. Such sensors can include camera devices, video recording devices, infrared sensor devices, radar devices, depth camera devices which can include one or more light-scanning devices including LIDAR devices")
one or more actuation controls configured to enable the vehicle to perform one or more driving actions (Paragraph [0029], "VNS 110 is communicatively coupled to at least some of the control elements 112 of the vehicle 100 and is configured to control one or more of the elements 112 to navigate the vehicle 100,” here the system uses control elements/actuation controls to enable the vehicle to navigate and perform driving actions)
a computing device, comprising a processor and a memory, coupled to the vehicle, configured to store programming instructions that, when executed by the processor, are configured to cause the processor to (See figure 9, showing processors, memory) (Paragraph [0146], “System memory 920 may be configured to store program instructions, data, etc. accessible by processor 910.”)
automatically generate an automatic trajectory command based on the one or more data points generated from the one or more sensors (Paragraph [0026], "The VNS, in some embodiments, includes an autonomous navigation system (ANS) which is configured to autonomously generate autonomous driving control commands which control various control elements of the vehicle to autonomously navigate the vehicle along one or more driving routes.")
generate driving actions based on a trajectory (Paragraph [0031], “As used herein, autonomous navigation of the vehicle 100 refers to controlled navigation (“driving”) of vehicle 100 along at least a portion of a route based upon autonomous driving control, by VNS 110, of the control elements 112 of the vehicle 100, including steering control elements, throttle control elements, braking control elements, transmission control elements, etc.”)
wherein the one or more driving actions correlate to one or more actuator commands configured to cause the vehicle to be positioned in accordance with the one or more automatic trajectory plot points (Paragraph [0026], "The VNS, in some embodiments, includes an autonomous navigation system (ANS) which is configured to autonomously generate autonomous driving control commands which control various control elements of the vehicle to autonomously navigate the vehicle along one or more driving routes.") (Paragraph [0031], “As used herein, autonomous navigation of the vehicle 100 refers to controlled navigation (“driving”) of vehicle 100 along at least a portion of a route based upon autonomous driving control, by VNS 110, of the control elements 112 of the vehicle 100, including steering control elements, throttle control elements, braking control elements, transmission control elements, etc.”)
and a remote station system, located remotely from the vehicle (Paragraph [0005], “the remote control system can generate remote driving commands which cause the vehicle to be navigated to a particular location without requiring the occupant associated with the health emergency to manually navigate the vehicle”)
configured to receive the one or more data points generated by the one or more sensors (Paragraph [0038], "Module 122 can monitor one or more aspects of the interior and exterior of the vehicle, via sensor data generated by one or more sensors 113-114")
and generate a remote trajectory command comprising one or more driving actions (Paragraph [0036-0037], "VNS 110 includes a set of modules which are configured to enable VNS 110 to cause the vehicle 100 to be navigated through an environment based on remote driving control of the vehicle. Remote driving control can be based on one or more remote driving command signals, also referred to herein as remote driving commands, received at VNS 110 from one or more remote control systems via one or more interfaces 116. VNS 110 includes an remote control request module 122 which determines whether to generate a remote control request signal which, when received at a remotely located remote control system, is processed as a request, by VNS 110, for the remote control system to engage remote driving control of the VNS 110 via one or more interfaces 116.")
wherein the one or more driving actions correlate to one or more actuator commands configured to cause the vehicle to perform the one or more driving actions (Paragraph [0040], "The driving route can be generated at module 124 based on input commands received from an interface 115, data received from one or more interfaces 116, etc. In another example, where VNS 110 is in a remote driving control mode, module 124 can generate control signals based on remote control commands received from a remote control system via one or more interfaces 116.")
wherein the programming instructions, when executed by the processor, are further configured to cause the processor to: determine whether the remote trajectory command is present for a predetermined timeframe (Paragraph [0041], "Module 124 can switch the VNS 110 to a remote driving control mode based on one or more of generation of an remote control request signal at module 122, receipt of one or more remote driving commands from a remote control system via an interface 116, generation of an authorization signal at module 125, receipt of an authorization confirmation signal from a remote control system via an interface 116, some combination thereof, etc," here the system can switch to a remote driving mode based on whether a remote trajectory command is present by detecting receipt of one or more remote driving commands)
when the remote trajectory command is present for the predetermined timeframe (Paragraph [0140], “The remote control device can be configured to deactivate in the absence of receiving a command … within a certain period of elapsed time,” here the remote trajectory is only active when commands are received for a predetermined timeframe/period).
However Nabbe does not explicitly teach wherein the automatic trajectory command comprises automatic trajectory instructions which comprise one or more automatic trajectory plot points, and each automatic trajectory plot point, of the one or more automatic trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time, and generate based on the or more automatic trajectory plot points, one or more driving actions, when the remote trajectory command is present for the predetermined timeframe, determine whether the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command, and when the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command, cause the vehicle, via the one or more actuation controls, to perform the one or more driving actions during the predetermined timeframe in accordance with the remote trajectory command.
Sandberg teaches a vehicle system which uses a plurality of trajectories in order to validate a trajectory and control a vehicle including
wherein the automatic trajectory command comprises automatic trajectory instructions which comprise one or more automatic trajectory plot points (Paragraph [0067], “Each planned trajectory may provide a planned path and other instructions for an autonomous vehicle to follow for some brief period of time into the future, such as 10 seconds or more or less. In this regard, the trajectories may define the specific characteristics of acceleration, deceleration, speed, direction, etc. to allow the vehicle to follow the route towards reaching a destination location. A control system software module of computing devices 110 may be configured to control movement of the vehicle, for instance by controlling braking, acceleration and steering of the vehicle, in order to follow a trajectory.”) (See also figures 8-12 showing generated trajectory plot points)
and each automatic trajectory plot point, of the one or more automatic trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time (Paragraph [0067], “Each planned trajectory may provide a planned path and other instructions for an autonomous vehicle to follow for some brief period of time into the future, such as 10 seconds or more or less. In this regard, the trajectories may define the specific characteristics of acceleration, deceleration, speed, direction, etc. to allow the vehicle to follow the route towards reaching a destination location. “)
and generate based on the or more automatic trajectory plot points, one or more driving actions (Paragraph [0067], “A control system software module of computing devices 110 may be configured to control movement of the vehicle, for instance by controlling braking, acceleration and steering of the vehicle, in order to follow a trajectory.”)
when the remote trajectory command is present for the predetermined timeframe, determine whether the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command (Paragraph [0089], “If the second trajectory would now bring the autonomous vehicle within a threshold distance of a predicted location (according to a behavior prediction generated by the behavior modeling system 176) of another road, the first trajectory may be validated. In this regard, the second trajectory may be used to validate the first trajectory,” here the system is determining if the first trajectory can be validated by comparing the result of the second trajectory to the predicted location of the first trajectory)
and when the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command, cause the vehicle, via the one or more actuation controls, to perform the one or more driving actions during the predetermined timeframe in accordance with the remote trajectory command (Paragraph [0006], “when the first trajectory is determined not to be validated, continuing to generate and use trajectories generated by the second planning system to control the autonomous vehicle until the autonomous vehicle is no longer in a driving situation which caused the second trajectory not to be validated,” here when the first commanded trajectory is not validated/different from the second trajectory, then the system controls the vehicle according to the second trajectory, here while it is not explicitly taught that the first system is onboard the vehicle and the second system is remote, this same methodology of switching from a first trajectory planning system to a second trajectory planning system could reasonably be applied to the autonomous and remote planning systems of Nabbe).
Nabbe and Sandberg are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems for controlling autonomous vehicles according to a planned trajectory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein the automatic trajectory command comprises automatic trajectory instructions which comprise one or more automatic trajectory plot points, and each automatic trajectory plot point, of the one or more automatic trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time, and generate based on the or more automatic trajectory plot points, one or more driving actions, when the remote trajectory command is present for the predetermined timeframe, determine whether the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command, and when the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command, cause the vehicle, via the one or more actuation controls, to perform the one or more driving actions during the predetermined timeframe in accordance with the remote trajectory command of Sandberg in the system for controlling an autonomous vehicle of Nabbe with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the safety of the system by confirming that a first planning system can operate safely (Paragraph [0030], “As such, in each planning iteration, the validation system confirms that the first planning system can plan safely, so that if there is a problem, the validation system can switch the autonomous vehicle to the second planning system even in the worst case.”).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 2 and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 4 and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 5 and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 6 and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 7 and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, Nabbe teaches a method for controlling a vehicle comprising (Paragraph [0005], "Some embodiments provide a vehicle navigation system which can navigate a vehicle through an environment based on driving commands")
generating one or more data points from one or more sensors coupled to a vehicle, wherein the one or more data points pertain to one or more of: an environment of the vehicle; and one or more system component measurements of the vehicle (Paragraph [0033], "Vehicle 100 includes a set of one or more external sensor devices 113, also referred to as external sensors 113, which can monitor one or more aspects of an external environment relative to the vehicle 100. Such sensors can include camera devices, video recording devices, infrared sensor devices, radar devices, depth camera devices which can include one or more light-scanning devices including LIDAR devices")
via a controller, comprising a processor (See Figure 9, showing processors 910)
automatically generating an automatic trajectory command based on the one or more data points generated from the one or more sensors (Paragraph [0026], "The VNS, in some embodiments, includes an autonomous navigation system (ANS) which is configured to autonomously generate autonomous driving control commands which control various control elements of the vehicle to autonomously navigate the vehicle along one or more driving routes.")
generate driving actions based on a trajectory (Paragraph [0031], “As used herein, autonomous navigation of the vehicle 100 refers to controlled navigation (“driving”) of vehicle 100 along at least a portion of a route based upon autonomous driving control, by VNS 110, of the control elements 112 of the vehicle 100, including steering control elements, throttle control elements, braking control elements, transmission control elements, etc.”)
and generating one or more driving actions, wherein the one or more driving actions correlate to one or more actuator commands configured to cause the vehicle to be positioned in accordance with the one or more automatic trajectory (Paragraph [0026], "The VNS, in some embodiments, includes an autonomous navigation system (ANS) which is configured to autonomously generate autonomous driving control commands which control various control elements of the vehicle to autonomously navigate the vehicle along one or more driving routes.") (Paragraph [0031], “As used herein, autonomous navigation of the vehicle 100 refers to controlled navigation (“driving”) of vehicle 100 along at least a portion of a route based upon autonomous driving control, by VNS 110, of the control elements 112 of the vehicle 100, including steering control elements, throttle control elements, braking control elements, transmission control elements, etc.”)
via a remote station system located remotely from the vehicle: (Paragraph [0005], “the remote control system can generate remote driving commands which cause the vehicle to be navigated to a particular location without requiring the occupant associated with the health emergency to manually navigate the vehicle”)
receiving the one or more data points generated by the one or more sensors (Paragraph [0038], "Module 122 can monitor one or more aspects of the interior and exterior of the vehicle, via sensor data generated by one or more sensors 113-114")
and generating a remote trajectory command comprising one or more driving actions (Paragraph [0036-0037], "VNS 110 includes a set of modules which are configured to enable VNS 110 to cause the vehicle 100 to be navigated through an environment based on remote driving control of the vehicle. Remote driving control can be based on one or more remote driving command signals, also referred to herein as remote driving commands, received at VNS 110 from one or more remote control systems via one or more interfaces 116. VNS 110 includes an remote control request module 122 which determines whether to generate a remote control request signal which, when received at a remotely located remote control system, is processed as a request, by VNS 110, for the remote control system to engage remote driving control of the VNS 110 via one or more interfaces 116.")
wherein the one or more driving actions correlate to one or more actuator commands configured to cause the vehicle to perform the one or more driving actions (Paragraph [0040], "The driving route can be generated at module 124 based on input commands received from an interface 115, data received from one or more interfaces 116, etc. In another example, where VNS 110 is in a remote driving control mode, module 124 can generate control signals based on remote control commands received from a remote control system via one or more interfaces 116.")
and the controller is further configured to determine whether the remote trajectory command is present for a predetermined timeframe (Paragraph [0041], "Module 124 can switch the VNS 110 to a remote driving control mode based on one or more of generation of an remote control request signal at module 122, receipt of one or more remote driving commands from a remote control system via an interface 116, generation of an authorization signal at module 125, receipt of an authorization confirmation signal from a remote control system via an interface 116, some combination thereof, etc," here the system can switch to a remote driving mode based on whether a remote trajectory command is present by detecting receipt of one or more remote driving commands)
when the remote trajectory command is present for the predetermined timeframe (Paragraph [0140], “The remote control device can be configured to deactivate in the absence of receiving a command … within a certain period of elapsed time,” here the remote trajectory is only active when commands are received for a predetermined timeframe/period).
However Nabbe does not explicitly teach wherein the automatic trajectory command comprises automatic trajectory instructions which comprise one or more automatic trajectory plot points, and each automatic trajectory plot point, of the one or more automatic trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time, and generating based on the or more automatic trajectory plot points, one or more driving actions, when the remote trajectory command is present for the predetermined timeframe, determine whether the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command, and when the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command, cause the vehicle, via the one or more actuation controls, to perform the one or more driving actions during the predetermined timeframe in accordance with the remote trajectory command.
Sandberg teaches a vehicle system which uses a plurality of trajectories in order to validate a trajectory and control a vehicle including
wherein the automatic trajectory command comprises automatic trajectory instructions which comprise one or more automatic trajectory plot points (Paragraph [0067], “Each planned trajectory may provide a planned path and other instructions for an autonomous vehicle to follow for some brief period of time into the future, such as 10 seconds or more or less. In this regard, the trajectories may define the specific characteristics of acceleration, deceleration, speed, direction, etc. to allow the vehicle to follow the route towards reaching a destination location. A control system software module of computing devices 110 may be configured to control movement of the vehicle, for instance by controlling braking, acceleration and steering of the vehicle, in order to follow a trajectory.”) (See also figures 8-12 showing generated trajectory plot points)
and each automatic trajectory plot point, of the one or more automatic trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time (Paragraph [0067], “Each planned trajectory may provide a planned path and other instructions for an autonomous vehicle to follow for some brief period of time into the future, such as 10 seconds or more or less. In this regard, the trajectories may define the specific characteristics of acceleration, deceleration, speed, direction, etc. to allow the vehicle to follow the route towards reaching a destination location. “)
and generating based on the or more automatic trajectory plot points, one or more driving actions (Paragraph [0067], “A control system software module of computing devices 110 may be configured to control movement of the vehicle, for instance by controlling braking, acceleration and steering of the vehicle, in order to follow a trajectory.”)
when the remote trajectory command is present for the predetermined timeframe, determining whether the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command (Paragraph [0089], “If the second trajectory would now bring the autonomous vehicle within a threshold distance of a predicted location (according to a behavior prediction generated by the behavior modeling system 176) of another road, the first trajectory may be validated. In this regard, the second trajectory may be used to validate the first trajectory,” here the system is determining if the first trajectory can be validated by comparing the result of the second trajectory to the predicted location of the first trajectory)
and when the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command, cause the vehicle, via the one or more actuation controls, to perform the one or more driving actions during the predetermined timeframe in accordance with the remote trajectory command (Paragraph [0006], “when the first trajectory is determined not to be validated, continuing to generate and use trajectories generated by the second planning system to control the autonomous vehicle until the autonomous vehicle is no longer in a driving situation which caused the second trajectory not to be validated,” here when the first commanded trajectory is not validated/different from the second trajectory, then the system controls the vehicle according to the second trajectory, here while it is not explicitly taught that the first system is onboard the vehicle and the second system is remote, this same methodology of switching from a first trajectory planning system to a second trajectory planning system could reasonably be applied to the autonomous and remote planning systems of Nabbe).
Nabbe and Sandberg are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems for controlling autonomous vehicles according to a planned trajectory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein the automatic trajectory command comprises automatic trajectory instructions which comprise one or more automatic trajectory plot points, and each automatic trajectory plot point, of the one or more automatic trajectory plot points, comprises position coordinates for the vehicle to be at a specific time, and generate based on the or more automatic trajectory plot points, one or more driving actions, when the remote trajectory command is present for the predetermined timeframe, determine whether the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command, and when the remote trajectory command is different from the automatic trajectory command, cause the vehicle, via the one or more actuation controls, to perform the one or more driving actions during the predetermined timeframe in accordance with the remote trajectory command of Sandberg in the system for controlling an autonomous vehicle of Nabbe with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the safety of the system by confirming that a first planning system can operate safely (Paragraph [0030], “As such, in each planning iteration, the validation system confirms that the first planning system can plan safely, so that if there is a problem, the validation system can switch the autonomous vehicle to the second planning system even in the worst case.”).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 2 and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 4 and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 6 and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 7 and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabbe (US-20230356692) in view of Sandberg (US-20240017741) and further in view of Houshmand (US-20220194419).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nabbe and Sandberg teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more trajectory plot points comprise trajectory plot points generated in 0.1 second intervals.
Houshmand teaches wherein the one or more trajectory plot points comprise trajectory plot points generated in 0.1 second intervals (Paragraph [0018], “a smooth path output by the trajectory generation component 114 may comprise such points at a 10 or 100 millisecond interval, which may correspond to a time interval associated with the trajectory 118”).
Nabbe, Sandberg, and Houshmand are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems for controlling autonomous vehicles according to a planned trajectory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include wherein the one or more trajectory plot points comprise trajectory plot points generated in 0.1 second intervals of Houshmand in the system for controlling an autonomous vehicle of Nabbe and Sandberg with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the safety of the system by generating trajectories with a high enough resolution to control the vehicle at highway speeds (Paragraph [0013], “The techniques may additionally or alternatively enable teleoperation assistance to an autonomous vehicle moving at highway speeds. These improvements may increase the safety of the autonomous vehicle, improve the passenger experience, and increase the number of scenarios that the autonomous vehicle may navigate without needing to stop for more involved teleoperator input.”).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 3 and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 3 and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin (US-11294375) teaches systems and methods for autonomous driving control including generating a trajectory for a vehicle with operational data at various points along the trajectory. Bin-Nun (US-20220080962) teaches systems and methods for vehicle operation including a planning module which defines a route between a start point and an end point. Zeng (US-10678253) teaches control systems and methods for an autonomous vehicle including a module which generates a trajectory and speed profile that is represented as a sequence of states visited by the vehicle parameterized by time and velocity that specifies a longitudinal and lateral distance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER FEES whose telephone number is (303)297-4343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 5:30 MT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights