DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the application filed 1/13/2026.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In light of the amendments, the previous 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11 of 15 through 14 of 15 of the remarks, in summary, Applicant has formulated an argument on the basis of the newly amended language of “at least one of one or more angular thresholds or the one or more angular velocity thresholds using the LOS angle of the detected object”.
In response, the newly amended language has necessitated a new grounds of rejection.
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.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumari, Simran, et al. “Collision risk assessment based on line of sight” hereinafter “Kumari” in view of V. Cichella, T. Marinho, D. Stipanović, N. Hovakimyan, I. Kaminer and A. Trujillo, “Collision avoidance based on line-of-sight angle”, 2015 54th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), Osaka, Japan, 2015, pp. 6779-6784 hereinafter “Cichella”.
Claims 1, 10, and 19. Kumari teaches one or more processors comprising processing circuitry to:
detect, for each detected object of one or more detected objects detected by an ego-machine, a line of sight (LOS) angle between a heading of the ego-machine and the detected object (see at least pg. 14973, col. 1-col. 2 reads on describes this element as such—“It would be helpful to characterize collision scenarios and future vehicle trajectory relative to each other using the concept of LOS in determining the risk of collision. This characterization can be achieved by understanding the interception kinematics of 2 point objects as in Fig. 2 where M is the ego object and T is the target object. LOS separation between them is R and LOS angle is θ.
V
M
→
&
V
T
→
are velocities of M and T respectively.” Additionally, at least figs. 3-5 and 9 each illustrates A variation of a line of sight (LOS) angle between a heading of the ego-machine and the detected object. As noted, rather than using the term processor(s) and/or processing circuitry the Kumari reference implied such term(s) by teaches the concept of “computational power” in at least pg. 14973, col. 1, para. 1. In other words, computational power is a different way of teaching one or more processors comprising processing circuitry.);
generate a representation of one or more collision risks based at least on applying at least one of one or more angular thresholds or one or more angular velocity thresholds using the LOS angle of the detected object (pg. 14973, col. 1, para. 1 along with pg. 14976, col. 1, para. 2 reads on this element as such—“This paper deals with the head-on collision in place of conventional front-to-rear end collision. Further, such a technique based on LOS which also generates risk assessment metrics is expected to suitably deal with various types of maneuvers as experienced in practical scenarios….The generated risk threshold can be used to determine whether or not collision would occur when other vehicle reaches within the defined threshold displacement from the ego vehicle for any head on collision path”); and
cause an advanced driver assistance system of the ego-machine to execute one or more operations based at least on the one or more collision risks (pg. 14974, col. 2, para. 1 reads on this element as such—“Steering action helps in taking counteraction for avoiding collision, especially when the vehicles have approached very close to each other. Steering lets other vehicles drive away from ego vehicle laterally and thus plays an important role in avoiding the collision.”).
Kumari teaches at least using the LOS angle of the detected object as rejected above; however, Kumari is silent on the term angular velocity thresholds. Yet, Cichella teaches one or more angular velocity thresholds using the LOS angle of the detected object (The Abstract and pg. 6780, col. 1, para. 2 teaches “…that collision avoidance can be achieved upon knowledge of the line-of-sight (LOS) angle only. The LOS angle can be obtained using a dedicated pan-tilt gimbaled camera….” While pg. 6780, col. 2-pg. 6782, col. 1 teaches concept of angular rate. Here the angular rate threshold is implied because to avert a collision the angular rate is adjusted. On other words, an angular rate threshold is being used to avert a collision with an obstacle. Pg. 6783, section V further reads on this element as such—“The angular rate of the vehicle is used as control input to avert a possible collision with cooperative and uncooperative obstacles.” Thus, taken together the cited sections reads on this element.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combined the teaching of Cichella with the invention of Kumari because such combination would provide an avoidance algorithm which uses only the line-of-sight angle as feedback. (see pg. 6783, section V, Cichella).
Claims 2 and 11. Kumari teaches the one or more processors of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein the processing circuitry is further to generate the LOS angle based at least on an estimated position of the detected object (Fig. 2 best illustrates LOS angle. While pg. 14973, col. 2 thru pg. 14974, col. 1 teaches various scenarios of the LOS angle of the detected object relative to the ego vehicle).
Claims 3 and 12. Kumari teaches the one or more processors of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein processing circuitry is the further to determine to apply at least one of the one or more angular thresholds or the one or more angular velocity thresholds based at least on the detected object being located more than a threshold distance in front of the ego-machine (pg. 14976, col. 1, para. 2 reads on this element as such—“Since pdf characterizes risk, it is possible to use the threshold of pdf mode to distinguish between collision and no collision cases. This threshold is obtained by plotting ROC using the mode data obtained for each scenario when other vehicle approaches the ego vehicle and reaches a specific relative displacement named as threshold displacement. The threshold is to be chosen such that the Probability of Detection (PD) is greater than 0.85…. The generated risk threshold can be used to determine whether or not collision would occur when other vehicle reaches within the defined threshold displacement from the ego vehicle for any head on collision path.” On pg. 14974, col. 2, section 3.2, para. 1 defines “pdf” as such—“For characterizing the collision risk, a suitable measure such as the probability density function (pdf) of collision probability is employed.” Fig. 8 illustrates “different mode thresholds”).
Kumari teaches at least using the LOS angle of the detected object as rejected above; however, Kumari is silent on the term angular velocity thresholds. Yet, Cichella teaches one or more angular velocity thresholds using the LOS angle of the detected object (The Abstract and pg. 6780, col. 1, para. 2 teaches “…that collision avoidance can be achieved upon knowledge of the line-of-sight (LOS) angle only. The LOS angle can be obtained using a dedicated pan-tilt gimbaled camera….” While pg. 6780, col. 2-pg. 6782, col. 1 teaches concept of angular rate. Here the angular rate threshold is implied because to avert a collision the angular rate is adjusted. On other words, an angular rate threshold is being used to avert a collision with an obstacle. Pg. 6783, section V further reads on this element as such—“The angular rate of the vehicle is used as control input to avert a possible collision with cooperative and uncooperative obstacles.” Thus, taken together the cited sections reads on this element.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combined the teaching of Cichella with the invention of Kumari because such combination would provide an avoidance algorithm which uses only the line-of-sight angle as feedback. (see pg. 6783, section V, Cichella).
Claims 4 and 13. Kumari teaches the one or more processors of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein the processing circuitry is further to determine to apply at least one of the one or more angular thresholds or the one or more angular velocity thresholds based at least on the detected object being located more than a threshold lateral distance from the heading of the ego-machine (Fig. 4 illustrates a more than a threshold lateral distance from the heading of the ego-machine by the projected lateral displacement of the detected object. On pg. 14975, col. 1 Kumari further teaches a scenario that describes this element as such—“Initially, the other vehicle drives parallel to the reference path and then starts shifting laterally as the relative displacement between them decreases due to cooperative action. Evaluation of various parameters corresponding to this scenario is shown in Fig. 5. From the plot, it can be observed that initially LOS angle is near to 0 and then its magnitude starts to increase as the vehicle moves away from the reference line.” ).
Kumari teaches at least using the LOS angle of the detected object as rejected above; however, Kumari is silent on the term angular velocity thresholds. Yet, Cichella teaches one or more angular velocity thresholds using the LOS angle of the detected object (The Abstract and pg. 6780, col. 1, para. 2 teaches “…that collision avoidance can be achieved upon knowledge of the line-of-sight (LOS) angle only. The LOS angle can be obtained using a dedicated pan-tilt gimbaled camera….” While pg. 6780, col. 2-pg. 6782, col. 1 teaches concept of angular rate. Here the angular rate threshold is implied because to avert a collision the angular rate is adjusted. On other words, an angular rate threshold is being used to avert a collision with an obstacle. Pg. 6783, section V further reads on this element as such—“The angular rate of the vehicle is used as control input to avert a possible collision with cooperative and uncooperative obstacles.” Thus, taken together the cited sections reads on this element.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combined the teaching of Cichella with the invention of Kumari because such combination would provide an avoidance algorithm which uses only the line-of-sight angle as feedback. (see pg. 6783, section V, Cichella).
Claims 5 and 14. Kumari teaches the one or more processors of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein the processing circuitry is further to omit the detected object from the representation of the one or more collisions risks based at least on comparing an angular velocity of the LOS angle a designated angular velocity threshold of the one or more angular velocity thresholds (pg. 14973, col. 2 thru pg. 14974 col. 1 teaches a scenario that reads on this element as such—“Equation (3) implies that the velocity of another vehicle w.r.t ego vehicle will be such that the trajectory of former ( assuming constant relative velocity) intersects the circular region with radius Rlethal (refer to Fig. 4 and 6) for visualization) around the ego-vehicle. The radiusR1ethal should be properly chosen so that if condition (3) is satisfied along with the another condition (4) then, there is complete certainty that the vehicles will collide otherwise collision will be avoided. The way LOS angle changes in the head-on collision scenario with a decrease in relative displacement between two vehicles, while they are approaching each other (
V
R
< 0), is shown in Fig. 3. It is evident from Figure 3 that the LOS angle is very small (tends to zero) and almost constant when the vehicles are far.”).
Kumari teaches at least using the LOS angle of the detected object as rejected above; however, Kumari is silent on the term angular velocity thresholds. Yet, Cichella teaches one or more angular velocity thresholds using the LOS angle of the detected object (The Abstract and pg. 6780, col. 1, para. 2 teaches “…that collision avoidance can be achieved upon knowledge of the line-of-sight (LOS) angle only. The LOS angle can be obtained using a dedicated pan-tilt gimbaled camera….” While pg. 6780, col. 2-pg. 6782, col. 1 teaches concept of angular rate. Here the angular rate threshold is implied because to avert a collision the angular rate is adjusted. On other words, an angular rate threshold is being used to avert a collision with an obstacle. Pg. 6783, section V further reads on this element as such—“The angular rate of the vehicle is used as control input to avert a possible collision with cooperative and uncooperative obstacles.” Page 6782, col. 1, para. 2 teaches scenario that compares the angular rate. Thus, taken together the cited sections reads on this element.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combined the teaching of Cichella with the invention of Kumari because such combination would provide an avoidance algorithm which uses only the line-of-sight angle as feedback. (see pg. 6783, section V, Cichella).
Claims 6 and 15. Kumari teaches the one or more processors of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein the processing circuitry is further to omit the detected object from the representation of the one or more collisions risks based at least on an estimated future of the detected object exceeding a designated angular threshold of the one or more angular thresholds (pg. 14976, col. 1, para. 1 in section 4 reads on this element as such—“Multiple simulations of scenarios are performed and mode data for each simulation is recorded when another vehicle is within 2m from the front end of the ego vehicle or 5.2m from the ego vehicle's COG. Hereafter, the stored data is used to plot the ROC curve in order to choose a threshold such that (PD) is high and (PFA) is low. Fig. 8 shows the ROC plot based on thresholds of the mode of the probability of collision, from which it is seen that PD is high (0.9) and PFA is low (<0.1) at threshold value 0.64 (approx.). Therefore, 0.64 is an optimum threshold which characterizes the risk of collision in a head-on collision scenario.”).
Kumari teaches at least using the LOS angle of the detected object as rejected above; however, Kumari is silent on the term angular velocity thresholds. Yet, Cichella teaches one or more angular velocity thresholds using the LOS angle of the detected object (The Abstract and pg. 6780, col. 1, para. 2 teaches “…that collision avoidance can be achieved upon knowledge of the line-of-sight (LOS) angle only. The LOS angle can be obtained using a dedicated pan-tilt gimbaled camera….” While pg. 6780, col. 2-pg. 6782, col. 1 teaches concept of angular rate. Here the angular rate threshold is implied because to avert a collision the angular rate is adjusted. On other words, an angular rate threshold is being used to avert a collision with an obstacle. Pg. 6783, section V further reads on this element as such—“The angular rate of the vehicle is used as control input to avert a possible collision with cooperative and uncooperative obstacles.” Thus, taken together the cited sections reads on this element.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combined the teaching of Cichella with the invention of Kumari because such combination would provide an avoidance algorithm which uses only the line-of-sight angle as feedback. (see pg. 6783, section V, Cichella).
Claims 7 and 16. Kumari teaches the one or more processors of claim 1 and further teach, wherein the processing circuitry is further to omit the detected object from the representation of the one or more collisions risks based at least on estimating an angular acceleration of the LOS angle (Taken together the following cited sections reads on this element as such—“ pg. 14973, col. 2 thru pg. 14974 col. 1 teaches a scenario that reads on this element as such—“ Equation (3) implies that the velocity of another vehicle w.r.t ego vehicle will be such that the trajectory of former ( assuming constant relative velocity) intersects the circular region with radius R1ethal (refer to Fig. 4 and 6) for visualization) around the ego-vehicle. The radius R1ethal should be properly chosen so that if condition (3) is satisfied along with the another condition (4) then, there is complete certainty that the vehicles will collide otherwise collision will be avoided. The way LOS angle changes in the head-on collision scenario with a decrease in relative displacement between two vehicles, while they are approaching each other (V_R < 0), is shown in Fig. 3. It is evident from Figure 3 that the LOS angle is very small (tends to zero) and almost constant when the vehicles are far. Pg. 14976, col. 1, para. 1 in section 4 reads on this element as such—“Multiple simulations of scenarios are performed and mode data for each simulation is recorded when another vehicle is within 2m from the front end of the ego vehicle or 5.2m from the ego vehicle's COG. Hereafter, the stored data is used to plot the ROC curve in order to choose a threshold such that (PD) is high and (PFA) is low.”).
Claims 8 and 17. Kumari teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the advanced driver assistance system comprises one or more modules to execute the operations based at least on the one or more collision risks identified using at least one of the one or more angular thresholds or the one or more angular velocity thresholds (Taken together the following cited section reads on this element—pg. 14974, col. 2, para. 1 reads on this element as such—“Steering action helps in taking counteraction for avoiding collision, especially when the vehicles have approached very close to each other. Steering lets other vehicles drive away from ego vehicle laterally and thus plays an important role in avoiding the collision.” pg. 14976, col. 1, para. 2 reads on this element as such—“Since pdf characterizes risk, it is possible to use the threshold of pdf mode to distinguish between collision and no collision cases. This threshold is obtained by plotting ROC using the mode data obtained for each scenario when other vehicle approaches the ego vehicle and reaches a specific relative displacement named as threshold displacement. The threshold is to be chosen such that the Probability of Detection (PD) is greater than 0.85…. The generated risk threshold can be used to determine whether or not collision would occur when other vehicle reaches within the defined threshold displacement from the ego vehicle for any head on collision path.” On pg. 14974, col. 2, section 3.2, para. 1 defines “pdf” as such—“For characterizing the collision risk, a suitable measure such as the probability density function (pdf) of collision probability is employed.” Fig. 8 illustrates “different mode thresholds”).
Kumari teaches at least using the LOS angle of the detected object as rejected above; however, Kumari is silent on the term angular velocity thresholds. Yet, Cichella teaches one or more angular velocity thresholds using the LOS angle of the detected object (The Abstract and pg. 6780, col. 1, para. 2 teaches “…that collision avoidance can be achieved upon knowledge of the line-of-sight (LOS) angle only. The LOS angle can be obtained using a dedicated pan-tilt gimbaled camera….” While pg. 6780, col. 2-pg. 6782, col. 1 teaches concept of angular rate. Here the angular rate threshold is implied because to avert a collision the angular rate is adjusted. On other words, an angular rate threshold is being used to avert a collision with an obstacle. Pg. 6783, section V further reads on this element as such—“The angular rate of the vehicle is used as control input to avert a possible collision with cooperative and uncooperative obstacles.” Thus, taken together the cited sections reads on this element.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combined the teaching of Cichella with the invention of Kumari because such combination would provide an avoidance algorithm which uses only the line-of-sight angle as feedback. (see pg. 6783, section V, Cichella).
Claims 9, 18 and 20. Kumari teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (pg. 14972, section 1 reads on at least this element as such—“The general architecture of the collision avoidance system consists of four modules- Sensing or Perception module,
Risk assessment module, Motion planning and re-planning module and Control and Actuation module...”);
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for performing remote operations;
a system for performing real-time streaming;
a system for generating or presenting one or more of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content;
a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conversational AI operations;
a system implementing one or more language models;
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs);
a system for generating synthetic data;
a system for generating synthetic data using AI;
a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
K. L. Chaudhary and D. Ghose, "Path planning in dynamic environments with deforming obstacles using collision cones," 2017 Indian Control Conference (ICC), Guwahati, India, 2017, pp. 87-92—This reference teaches a path planning algorithm in a dynamic environment with moving and deforming irregularly shaped obstacles using the concept of collision cones.
A. Bansal, J. Singh, M. Verucchi, M. Caccamo and L. Sha, “Risk Ranked Recall: Collision Safety Metric for Object Detection Systems in Autonomous Vehicles” 2021 10th Mediterranean Conference on Embedded Computing (MECO), Budva, Montenegro, 2021, pp. 1-4—This reference teaches collision safety metric for object detection system in autonomous vehicles.
T. Marinho, M. Amrouche, V. Cichella, D. Stipanović and N. Hovakimyan, “Guaranteed Collision Avoidance Based on Line-of-Sight Angle and Time-to-Collision,” 2018 Annual American Control Conference (ACC), Milwaukee, WI, USA, 2018, pp. 4305-4310—This reference teaches framework for evading collisions in a scenario with multiple obstacles.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA D THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 - 5.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/A.D.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights