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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Accordingly, the priority date is considered to be 07/18/2023.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea accomplishable by mental processes without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing and manipulating data, which is analogous to mental work with the aid of generic computer equipment. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, The claims are directed to method.
Step 2A; is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing and manipulating data for the purpose of determining a path to a position. In essence, the independent claims recite; collection of information based on a generically recited sensor(s), analyzing the detected information, and determining a minimum risk maneuver as a result (generating a trajectory/path).
Prong One; Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, as understood in their broadest reasonable interpretation, the independent claims are directed to a method of collecting and analyzing data, which is accomplishable by human mental activity with the assistance of pen and paper or generic computer equipment. In addition, the remaining claim limitations either work to develop the abstract idea further [such as detailing how to determine a stopping location or optimization criteria], or to implement the idea onto generic computer components [using a generically recited sensor and processor].
Prong Two; Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the elements are generically recited. In particular, elements of a vehicle controller and sensors merely use generically recited features as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Sensor (generically recited, simply used as a source for the data that is being analyzed in the claimed method as insignificant pre-solution activity)
Processor (generically recited, merely amounting to using generic computer equipment to accomplish the abstract idea of analyzing/manipulating data)
Therefore, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 19, however, actively controls the vehicle in response to the abstract idea, and thus sufficiently integrates it into a practical application. Therefore, claims 19-20 are eligible.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1-18 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For the same reasons as described above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, Claims 1-18 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Using similar reasoning to above, Claims 1-18 do not add any significant structure or elements that qualify as significantly more, and instead merely further detail/define aspects of the abstract idea, and thus do not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, Claims 1-18 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park (US20230382371A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches;
An autonomous vehicle (taught as a vehicle, element 100) comprising:
at least one sensor (taught as a sensor, element 110, such as camera, paragraph 0032, LIDAR, paragraph 0034, or RADAR, paragraph 0036) configured to detect surrounding environment of the vehicle and to generate surrounding environment information (taught as camera, paragraph 0032, LIDAR, paragraph 0034, and RADAR being used to detect other objects, paragraph 0036);
a processor (taught as a processor, element 130), during autonomous driving of the vehicle, configured to generate vehicle state information by monitoring a state of the vehicle (taught as the processor performing determination related to the control of the vehicle, paragraph 0045, such as by monitoring the state around the vehicle, paragraph 0072), and to determine whether a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) is required based on at least one of the surrounding environment information and the vehicle state information (taught as the processor generating a request for minimal risk maneuver [MRM] in accordance to the detection result, paragraph 0072); and
a controller (taught as a controller, element 120) configured to control operations of the vehicle under the control of the processor (taught as the controller controlling the driving of the vehicle according to the processor, paragraph 0041),
wherein, based on a determination that the MRM is required, the processor is configured to determine an MRM type (taught as selecting a type of MRM, Fig 3 S130, paragraph 0075), and when the determined MRM type is a shoulder stop (taught as a shoulder stop, Fig 11 level 4, paragraph 0152), the processor is configured to generate at least one stop position candidate group (taught as determining a safety zone in which the vehicle can safely stop when performing the MRM, paragraph 0200, Fig 15).
Regarding claim 12, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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(s) 2-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US20230382371A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Iagnemma (US20180113457A1).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches;
The vehicle of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the processor is configured to: recognize, based on the surrounding environment information, a shoulder area(taught as recognizing the shoulder, paragraph 0088). However, Park does not explicitly teach; partition the shoulder area into a plurality of virtual areas,
determine a score of each of the virtual areas,
wherein the score is determined based on at least one of: a speed of the vehicle, a free space on the shoulder area, or a distance from a current position of the vehicle to a stop position of the vehicle, and
generate, based on the determined score of each of the virtual areas, the at least one stop position candidate group.
Iagnemma teaches; recognize, based on the surrounding environment information, a shoulder area (taught as a proximity region, defined within a predetermined distance of a goal position, paragraph 0081, and a goal region, a region/set of acceptable stopping places, paragraph 0089, examples including the very edge of the road adjacent to the curb, paragraph 0071),
partition the shoulder area into a plurality of virtual areas (taught as defining a subset of regions/points in the proximity region to be a goal region, paragraph 0089, and further defining sub-regions of the goal region, paragraph 0117),
determine a score of each of the virtual areas (taught as filtering a proximity region down to a goal region based on an acceptable stopping area criteria [e.g. a binary yes, able to stop, or no, unable to stop], paragraph 0089, and further ranking sub-regions of the goal region, paragraph 0117, based on the nature of the activity, the autonomous vehicle, measure of desirability etc. paragraph 0118),
wherein the score is determined based on at least one of: [[a speed of the vehicle]], a free space on the shoulder area (taught as considering vehicle footprint required to stop at a location, where a region is undesirable if it cannot fully contain the vehicle, paragraph 0094), or a distance from a current position of the vehicle to a stop position of the vehicle (indicated in the proximity region having a distance criteria; regions outside the distance are not considered [low rank], paragraph 0081), and
generate, based on the determined score of each of the virtual areas, the at least one stop position candidate group (taught as determining a stopping place in the goal region based on the feasibility, desirability, and optimization algorithms of the trajectory planning process, paragraph 0133).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a stop candidate position as taught by Iagnemma in the system taught by Park to improve safety and desirability of a stopping location. As suggested by Iagnemma, such a system allows for the consideration of the legality, desirability and feasibility of stopping positions (paragraph 0027). In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to apply the more specific stopping location selection taught by Iagnemma in the autonomous risk maneuver system taught by Park in order to more explicitly and effectively stop the vehicle according to optimization criteria.
Regarding claim 3, Park as modified by Iagnemma teaches;
The vehicle of claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection). However, park does not explicitly teach; wherein the processor is configured to assign a predetermined score to a virtual area, of the plurality of virtual areas, comprising an obstacle.
Iagnemma teaches; wherein the processor is configured to assign a predetermined score to a virtual area, of the plurality of virtual areas, comprising an obstacle (taught as considering spaces with parked vehicles or other obstacles as not being a feasible stopping space, paragraph 0062, e.g. a low score akin to a ‘0’)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a stop candidate position as taught by Iagnemma in the system taught by Park to improve safety and desirability of a stopping location. As suggested by Iagnemma, such a system allows for the consideration of the legality, desirability and feasibility of stopping positions (paragraph 0027). In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to apply the more specific stopping location selection taught by Iagnemma in the autonomous risk maneuver system taught by Park in order to more explicitly and effectively stop the vehicle according to optimization criteria.
Regarding claim 4, Park as modified by Iagnemma teaches;
The vehicle of claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection). However, Park does not explicitly teach; wherein the processor is configured to:
match a virtual window area corresponding to a size of the vehicle to the plurality of virtual areas; and
generate the at least one stop position candidate group based on a value obtained by summing the scores of the respective virtual areas included in the virtual window area.
Iagnemma teaches; match a virtual window area corresponding to a size of the vehicle to the plurality of virtual areas (taught as considering the vehicle footprint area, where regions smaller than the footprint are not considered viable stopping locations, paragraph 0094); and
generate the at least one stop position candidate group based on a value obtained by summing the scores of the respective virtual areas included in the virtual window area (taught as combining all the criteria for a stopping candidate location into a rank, wherein a higher rank is more desirable than a lower rank, paragraph 0117, and selecting a stopping place based on the desirability of the location, paragraph 0133).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a stop candidate position as taught by Iagnemma in the system taught by Park to improve safety and desirability of a stopping location. As suggested by Iagnemma, such a system allows for the consideration of the legality, desirability and feasibility of stopping positions (paragraph 0027). In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to apply the more specific stopping location selection taught by Iagnemma in the autonomous risk maneuver system taught by Park in order to more explicitly and effectively stop the vehicle according to optimization criteria.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches;
The vehicle of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Park does not explicitly teach; wherein the processor is configured to: after generating the at least one stop position candidate group, generate a path from a current position of the vehicle to each stop position candidate of the at least one stop position candidate group.
Iagnemma teaches; after generating the at least one stop position candidate group, generate a path from a current position of the vehicle to each stop position candidate of the at least one stop position candidate group (taught as trajectory planning, identifying trajectories from the current position to a stopping place, paragraph 0130, wherein trajectories/paths are checked against feasibility/viability of stopping places, paragraph 0095).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a stop candidate position as taught by Iagnemma in the system taught by Park to improve safety and desirability of a stopping location. As suggested by Iagnemma, such a system allows for the consideration of the legality, desirability and feasibility of stopping positions (paragraph 0027). In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to apply the more specific stopping location selection taught by Iagnemma in the autonomous risk maneuver system taught by Park in order to more explicitly and effectively stop the vehicle according to optimization criteria.
Regarding claim 6, Park as modified by Iagnemma teaches;
The vehicle of claim 5 (see claim 5 rejection). However, Park does not explicitly teach; wherein the processor is configured to:
select a final stop position based on at least one of: a travel distance of the path from the current position to each stop position candidate, a stop characteristic of the vehicle after following the path from the current position to each stop position candidate, or values obtained by adding scores of virtual areas of an area occupied by the vehicle after following the path from the current position to each stop position candidate.
Iagnemma teaches; select a final stop position based on at least one [interpreted to mean only one criteria is required] of (taught as selecting the stopping place in the goal region): a travel distance of the path from the current position to each stop position candidate (taught as filtering a proximity region down to a goal region based on an acceptable stopping area criteria [e.g. a binary yes, able to stop, or no, unable to stop], paragraph 0089, and determining a desirability based on distance to a goal position, paragraph 0106), a stop characteristic [interpreted to mean a feature of a stop involving the positioning, angle or other constraint, such as exemplified in page 45 of the specification] of the vehicle in the stopping position of the vehicle after following the path from the current position to each stop position candidate (taught a determining desirability of a stopping location, based on further characteristics of a location such as a sightline, paragraph 0108, distance to the curb, paragraph 0108, or type of road, paragraph 0110), or values obtained by adding scores of virtual areas of an area occupied by the vehicle after following the path from the current position to each stop position candidate (taught as selecting the stopping place in the goal region based on the feasibility, relative desirability, and optimization objective, paragraph 0133, such as the most desirable [highest cumulative score] position, paragraph 0136).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a stop candidate position as taught by Iagnemma in the system taught by Park to improve safety and desirability of a stopping location. As suggested by Iagnemma, such a system allows for the consideration of the legality, desirability and feasibility of stopping positions (paragraph 0027). In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to apply the more specific stopping location selection taught by Iagnemma in the autonomous risk maneuver system taught by Park in order to more explicitly and effectively stop the vehicle according to optimization criteria.
Regarding claim 7, Park as modified by Iagnemma teaches;
The vehicle of claim 6 (see claim 6 rejection). However, Park does not explicitly teach; wherein the processor is configured to generate, based on stored map data, a first selection score for each travel distance that is based on the path from the current position to a respective stop position candidate.
Iagnemma teaches; generate, based on stored map data, a first selection score for each travel distance that is based on the path from the current position to a respective stop position candidate (indicated in the initial proximity search being within a certain configurable distance, paragraph 0054, where positions outside the region are not considered [low/no score]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a stop candidate position as taught by Iagnemma in the system taught by Park to improve safety and desirability of a stopping location. As suggested by Iagnemma, such a system allows for the consideration of the legality, desirability and feasibility of stopping positions (paragraph 0027). In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to apply the more specific stopping location selection taught by Iagnemma in the autonomous risk maneuver system taught by Park in order to more explicitly and effectively stop the vehicle according to optimization criteria.
Regarding claim 8, Park as modified by Iagnemma teaches;
The vehicle of claim 7 (see claim 7 rejection). However, Park does not explicitly teach; wherein the processor is configured to generate, based on the stored map data, a second selection score for each stop characteristic of the vehicle after following the path from the current position to a respective stop position candidate.
Iagnemma teaches; generate, based on the stored map data, a second selection score for each stop characteristic of the vehicle after following the path from the current position to a respective stop position candidate (taught as a generalized cost/utility function for stopping places to normalize desirability factors, paragraph 0114, including criteria based on the type of stopped activity).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a stop candidate position as taught by Iagnemma in the system taught by Park to improve safety and desirability of a stopping location. As suggested by Iagnemma, such a system allows for the consideration of the legality, desirability and feasibility of stopping positions (paragraph 0027). In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to apply the more specific stopping location selection taught by Iagnemma in the autonomous risk maneuver system taught by Park in order to more explicitly and effectively stop the vehicle according to optimization criteria.
Regarding claim 9, Park as modified by Iagnemma teaches;
The vehicle of claim 8 (see claim 8 rejection). However, Park does not explicitly teach; wherein the processor is configured to: generate, for a respective stop position candidate, a final score based on the first selection score, the second selection score, and a third selection score that is obtained by adding the scores of the respective virtual areas of an area occupied by the vehicle after following the path from the current position to a respective stop position candidate, and select, as the final stop position, a stop position candidate having a highest final score among the final scores of the respective stop position candidates.
Iagnemma teaches; generate, for a respective stop position candidate, a final score based on the first selection score, the second selection score, and a third selection score that is obtained by adding the scores of the respective virtual areas of an area occupied by the vehicle after following the path from the current position to a respective stop position candidate(taught as a generalized cost/utility function for stopping places to normalize desirability factors, paragraph 0114, including criteria based on the type of stopped activity), and
select, as the final stop position, a stop position candidate having a highest final score among the final scores of the respective stop position candidates (taught as selecting the stopping place in the goal region based on the feasibility, relative desirability, and optimization objective, paragraph 0133, such as the most desirable [highest cumulative score] position, paragraph 0136).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a stop candidate position as taught by Iagnemma in the system taught by Park to improve safety and desirability of a stopping location. As suggested by Iagnemma, such a system allows for the consideration of the legality, desirability and feasibility of stopping positions (paragraph 0027). In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to apply the more specific stopping location selection taught by Iagnemma in the autonomous risk maneuver system taught by Park in order to more explicitly and effectively stop the vehicle according to optimization criteria.
Regarding claim 10, Park as modified by Iagnemma teaches;
The vehicle of claim 6 (see claim 6 rejection). Park further teaches; wherein the processor is configured to transmit, to the controller, a path-following control command [[for the final stop position]] (taught as initiating a minimal risk maneuver, paragraph 0063). However, Park does not explicitly teach; a path-following control command for the final stop position.
Iagnemma teaches; wherein the processor is configured to transmit, to the controller, a path-following control command for the final stop position (taught as the autonomous system executing the trajectory planning process to route the vehicle to the selected stopping place, paragraph 0130).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a stop candidate position as taught by Iagnemma in the system taught by Park to improve safety and desirability of a stopping location. As suggested by Iagnemma, such a system allows for the consideration of the legality, desirability and feasibility of stopping positions (paragraph 0027). In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to apply the more specific stopping location selection taught by Iagnemma in the autonomous risk maneuver system taught by Park in order to more explicitly and effectively stop the vehicle according to optimization criteria.
Regarding claim 11, Park as modified by Iagnemma teaches;
The vehicle of claim 10 (see claim 10 rejection). However, Park does not explicitly teach; wherein the processor is configured to generate, based on a determination that the vehicle fails to arrive at the final stop position within a preset time, a stop position candidate group for changing the stop position.
Iagnemma teaches; wherein the processor is configured to generate, based on a determination that the vehicle fails to arrive at the final stop position within a preset time, a stop position candidate group for changing the stop position (taught as determining whether the vehicle is unable to stop within a specified amount of time, and adopting a strategy as a result, paragraph 0143, including redoing the stop selection process, paragraph 0145).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a stop candidate position as taught by Iagnemma in the system taught by Park to improve safety and desirability of a stopping location. As suggested by Iagnemma, such a system allows for the consideration of the legality, desirability and feasibility of stopping positions (paragraph 0027). In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would think to apply the more specific stopping location selection taught by Iagnemma in the autonomous risk maneuver system taught by Park in order to more explicitly and effectively stop the vehicle according to optimization criteria.
Regarding claims 13-20, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 2-11. Therefore, claims 13-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 2-11, wherein claims 13-14 correspond to claims 2 and 4 respectively, claims 15-17 correspond to claims 5-7, claim 18 corresponds to claim 9, and claims 19-20 correspond to 10-11 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further stopping location planning; US11181921B2, US12071162B2
For further safety maneuver evaluations akin to MRM; US11726492B2, US20190235499A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662