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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered.
The rejections of claims 3, 7, and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Claims 4 and 14 were rejected in the previous Office action under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which they depend. Applicant contends that claims 4 and 14 have been amended to address the rejection (page 7 of Applicant’s response). However, the claims have not been amended to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewritten in independent form, nor has Applicant presented a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements. Accordingly, claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d).
Claims 1-5, 6-8, 10-14, 16-18, and 20 were rejected in the previous Office action under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Packer et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0261122 A1) [hereinafter “Packer”]. Regarding this rejection, Applicant contends the following (pages 7-8 of Applicant’s response):
PNG
media_image1.png
420
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted in at least paragraph [0022], Packer teaches the updating includes “changing a planned path associated with the vehicle (e.g., lane change right, lane change left, change planned path of vehicle within lane, drive on shoulder, etc.).” This is further disclosed in paragraph [0050]: “The action may include slowing the vehicle 302 to yield to the agent 306, stopping the vehicle 302 to yield to the agent 306, changing lanes left, or changing lanes right.” This is illustrated in at least Figure 1, whereby the host vehicle 102 identifies parked vehicle 112 in a segment of the trajectory of the host vehicle and operational commands are adjusted to route the vehicle into a neighboring lane to avoid the parked vehicle (see also [0026]-[0028]).
Figure 1 is reproduced and annotated below:
PNG
media_image2.png
722
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As can be seen, that trajectory of the host vehicle is broken up into a plurality of segments illustrated as points 110 (see [0026]). Accordingly, as can be seen in Figure 1, when the parked vehicle 112 interferes with the host vehicle at a particular segment illustrated as between two consecutive lengthwise points 110, additional points of the trajectory around the segment are also adjusted to allow the vehicle to navigate around the object. As can be seen from at least [0026]-[0028] in conjunction with Figure 1, Packer does indeed disclose “based on the determining, identifying a portion of the one or more operational commands associated with the particular segment of the trajectory of the vehicle and updating the identified portion of the one or more operational commands, wherein the updating includes updating operational commands of other segments surrounding an updated segment to get the vehicle navigated to the updated segment” as claimed in claims 1 and 11.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive and the claims stand rejected as presented below in this Office action.
Applicant further argues for the allowability of all dependent claims based upon their dependency from claims 1 or 11. As claims 1 and 11 stand rejected, so too do all dependent claims as presented below in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “identifying a portion of the one or more operational commands associated with the segment of the trajectory of the vehicle; and updating the identified portion of the one or more operational commands.”
Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, recites, in part, “identifying a portion of the one or more operational commands associated with the particular segment of the trajectory of the vehicle and updating the identified portion of the one or more operational commands.”
As such, claim 4 fails to further limit the subject matter of claims 3 and 1, as the limitations found in claim 4 are already present in claim 1, and therefore also present in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “identify a portion of the one or more operational commands associated with the segment of the trajectory of the vehicle; and update the identified portion of the one or more operational commands.”
Claim 11, from which claim 14 depends, recites, in part, “identify a portion of the one or more operational commands associated with the particular segment of the trajectory of the vehicle and updating the identified portion of the one or more operational commands.”
As such, claim 14 fails to further limit the subject matter of claims 13 and 11, as the limitations found in claim 14 are already present in claim 11, and therefore also present in claim 13.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10-14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Packer et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0261122 A1) [hereinafter “Packer”].
Regarding claim 1, Packer discloses a method comprising:
generating, with at least one processor (processors 516), one or more operational commands for a vehicle, wherein the one or more operational commands are associated with segments of a trajectory of the vehicle (path polygon 104; see [0012]-[0013], [0026], [0069], and [0074]);
receiving, with the at least one processor, sensor data, the sensor data comprising locations and velocities of detected objects (see [0031]-[0033] and [0068]);
determining, with the at least one processor and based on the sensor data, that an object of the detected objects and the vehicle are projected to be proximate to a particular segment of the trajectory of the vehicle at a particular time (see [0017]-[0021] and [0034]-[0050]);
based on the determining, identifying a portion of the one or more operational commands associated with the particular segment of the trajectory of the vehicle and updating the identified portion of the one or more operational commands (see [0022], [0050], and [0062]-[0063]), wherein the updating includes updating operational commands of other segments surrounding an updated segment to get the vehicle navigated to the updated segment (see [0022], [0026]-[0028], [0050], [0062]-[0063], and Figure 1); and
executing, with a control circuit of the vehicle (system controllers 526), the one or more operational commands (see [0022], [0050], and [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 2¸ Packer further discloses determining that the object of the detected objects and the vehicle are projected to be proximate to the segment of the trajectory of the vehicle at the particular time, further comprises: generating, based on the velocity and location of the object of the detected objects, a trajectory of the object (see [0017], [0031]-[0033], and [0080]-[0081]); determining, based on the trajectory of the vehicle and the trajectory of the object, whether the object and the vehicle will be proximate to each other at the particular time (see [0017]-[0021] and [0034]-[0050]); and responsive to determining that the object and the vehicle will be proximate to each other at the particular time, identifying a segment of the trajectory of the vehicle where the trajectory will be proximate to the object (see [0017]-[0021] and [0034]-[0050] and Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, Packer further discloses determining, based on the trajectory of the vehicle and a trajectory of the object, whether the object and the vehicle will be proximate to each other at the particular time further comprises: identifying, at the particular time, a segment of the trajectory of the object closest to the segment of the trajectory of the vehicle (see [0017]-[0021] and [0034]-[0050] and Figures 1-4); determining whether a distance between the segment of the trajectory of the object and the segment of the trajectory of the vehicle is below a threshold (see [0017]-[0021], [0034]-[0050], and [0082]-[0083]); and responsive to determining that the distance is below a threshold, determining that the vehicle will be proximate to the object at the particular time (see [0017]-[0021], [0034]-[0050], and [0082]-[0083]).
Regarding claim 4¸ Packer further discloses identifying a portion of the one or more operational commands associated with the segment of the trajectory of the vehicle and updating the identified portion of the one or more operational commands (see [0022], [0050], and [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 8, Packer further discloses prior to updating the one or more operational commands, the method further comprises:
modifying the speed of the vehicle to a specified magnitude (see [0062]-[0063]);
receiving updated sensor data, where the updated sensor data includes updated locations and updated velocities of detected objects (see [0050], [0068], and [0097]-[0098]); and
based on the updated sensor data, generating a corresponding probability for each object, wherein each probability indicates how likely a corresponding object is to be proximate to the trajectory of the vehicle (see [0054]-[0062] and [0097]-[0098]).
Regarding claim 10, Packer further discloses the probability decreases as a distance between the location of the vehicle and the location of the object increases (see [0080], wherein objects beyond a threshold distance are not considered a collision risk).
Regarding claim 11, Packer discloses a vehicle (vehicle 102) comprising:
one or more processors (processors 516); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs for execution by the one or more processors (memory 518), the one or more programs including instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
generate one or more operational commands for the vehicle, wherein the one or more operational commands are associated with segments of a trajectory of the vehicle (path polygon 104; see [0012]-[0013], [0026], [0069], and [0074]);
receive sensor data, the sensor data comprising locations and velocities of detected objects (see [0031]-[0033] and [0068]);
determine, based on the sensor data, that an object of the detected objects and the vehicle are projected to be proximate to a particular segment of the trajectory of the vehicle at a particular time (see [0017]-[0021] and [0034]-[0050]);
based on the determining, identify a portion of the one or more operational commands associated with the particular segment of the trajectory of the vehicle and updating the identified portion of the one or more operational commands (see [0022], [0050], and [0062]-[0063]), wherein the updating includes updating operational commands of other segments surrounding an updated segment to get the vehicle navigated to the updated segment (see [0022], [0026]-[0028], [0050], [0062]-[0063], and Figure 1); and
execute the one or more operational commands (see [0022], [0050], and [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 12¸ Packer further discloses determining that the object of the detected objects and the vehicle are projected to be proximate to the segment of the trajectory of the vehicle at the particular time, further comprises: generating, based on the velocity and location of the object of the detected objects, a trajectory of the object (see [0017], [0031]-[0033], and [0080]-[0081]); determining, based on the trajectory of the vehicle and the trajectory of the object, whether the object and the vehicle will be proximate to each other at the particular time (see [0017]-[0021] and [0034]-[0050]); and responsive to determining that the object and the vehicle will be proximate to each other at the particular time, identifying a segment of the trajectory of the vehicle where the trajectory will be proximate to the object (see [0017]-[0021] and [0034]-[0050] and Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 13, Packer further discloses determining, based on the trajectory of the vehicle and a trajectory of the object, whether the object and the vehicle will be proximate to each other at the particular time further comprises: identifying, at the particular time, a segment of the trajectory of the object closest to the segment of the trajectory of the vehicle (see [0017]-[0021] and [0034]-[0050] and Figures 1-4); determining whether a distance between the segment of the trajectory of the object and the segment of the trajectory of the vehicle is below a threshold (see [0017]-[0021], [0034]-[0050], and [0082]-[0083]); and responsive to determining that the distance is below a threshold, determining that the vehicle will be proximate to the object at the particular time (see [0017]-[0021], [0034]-[0050], and [0082]-[0083]).
Regarding claim 14¸ Packer further discloses the instructions further cause the one or more processors to identify a portion of the one or more operational commands associated with the segment of the trajectory of the vehicle and update the identified portion of the one or more operational commands (see [0022], [0050], and [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 18, Packer further discloses prior to updating the one or more operational commands, the instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
modify the speed of the vehicle to a specified magnitude (see [0062]-[0063]);
receive updated sensor data, where the updated sensor data includes updated locations and updated velocities of detected objects (see [0050], [0068], and [0097]-[0098]); and
based on the updated sensor data, generate a corresponding probability for each object, wherein each probability indicates how likely a corresponding object is to be proximate to the trajectory of the vehicle (see [0054]-[0062] and [0097]-[0098]).
Regarding claim 20, Packer further discloses the probability decreases as a distance between the location of the vehicle and the location of the object increases (see [0080], wherein objects beyond a threshold distance are not considered a collision risk).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 CFR 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.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Packer in view of Kazemi et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0235499 A1) [hereinafter “Kazemi”].
Regarding claim 5, Packer does not expressly teach the one or more operational commands are stored in a data structure corresponding to the segment of the trajectory of the vehicle.
Kazemi also generally teaches systems and methods for controlling an autonomous vehicle (see Abstract). Kazemi teaches the motion plan data for the vehicle to follow autonomously is stored in a data structure (see [0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by Packer such that the one or more operational commands are stored in a data structure corresponding to the segment of the trajectory of the vehicle, in view of Kazemi, as Kazemi teaches storing the motion plan data in a data structure is a known manner of allowing the vehicle controller to access and execute the motion plan.
Regarding claim 15¸ the combination of Packer and Kazemi, as applied to claim 5 above, teaches the one or more operational commands are stored in a data structure corresponding to the segment of the trajectory of the vehicle (see [0024] of Kazemi and the rejection of claim 5 above).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Packer in view of Matsuoka et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0084177 A1) [hereinafter “Matsuoka”].
Regarding claim 9¸ Packer does not expressly teach the probability decreases as a time interval between the vehicle and the object being at a proximate location increases.
Matsuoka also generally teaches a system of controlling a vehicle to avoid a collision (see Abstract). Matsuoka teaches that as the time to collision increases, the probability of collision decreases (see [0067]).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by Packer such that the probability decreases as a time interval between the vehicle and the object being at a proximate location increases, in view of Matsuoka, as Matsuoka teaches it is known that as the time of collision increases, the probability of collision decreases (see [0067]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Packer and Matsuoka, as applied to claim 9 above, teaches the probability decreases as a time interval between the vehicle and the object being at a proximate location increases (see [0067] of Matsuoka and the rejection of claim 9 above).
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 ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ANSHUL SOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667