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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 12/30/2025. Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 7, 13-14, and 18-19 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 9-15, filed 12/30/2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the specification objection, although the title has been amended, the new title is not descriptive of the driving mode based trajectory selection, which is being claimed. Therefore, the objection to the title is maintained.
With respect to the claim objections, the amendments have rendered the objections moot. Therefore, the objections to the claims are withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Further consideration of the prior art of record determined that Yu does appear to disclose the limitations as amended in claim 1. Due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed. New application of prior art addresses the amended language, as mapped below. The rejection has been updated to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 to include Djuric’s risk/confidence level to cover the optional language in the claim. Therefore, the amended claims are still rejected, now under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and have been updated in the final office action below.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2021/0262819 A1), hereinafter Yu, in view of Djuric et al. (US 2019/0049970 A1), hereinafter Djuric.
With respect to claim 1, Yu discloses a method of vehicle operation, comprising: determining, by a computer located in a vehicle, a plurality of candidate trajectories corresponding to a plurality of driving modes, each candidate trajectory including a set of values of a predicted trajectory along which the vehicle is predicted to operate in a driving mode; ([0023] “The route is divided into a first route segment and a second route segment… operating in one of an on-lane mode or an open-space mode to plan a first trajectory for the first route segment and operating in one of the on-lane mode or the open-space mode to plan a second trajectory for the second route segment.” [0028-0029] “operating in the on-lane mode includes… selecting a trajectory from the set of candidate trajectories… operating in the open-space mode includes… selecting a trajectory from the set of candidate trajectories”)
performing a first determination that the vehicle is operable in the driving mode in response to determining that the set of values of the driving mode is within maximum and minimum values associated with another set of values of a trajectory along which the vehicle is expected to be operated; ([0097] “when the ADV 810 arrives at the point 805 a, perception module 302 may detect the ADV 810 is to be drive[n] in the second driving area (e.g., 802). In response, the routing module 307 and the planning module 305 may be configured to automatically switch from operating in the on-lane mode following the first procedure to operating in the open-space mode following the second procedure.”)
each of the plurality of driving modes performs an operability evaluation based on one or more quantitative metrics associated with the corresponding candidate trajectory, the one or more quantitative metrics comprising at least one of (see at least [0042] “determine a starting point and an ending point of a route along which the ADV is to be driven, an algorithm to determine whether each of the starting point and the ending point is within a first driving area having a lane boundary or a second driving area as an open space that is without a lane boundary” Note: The starting/ending points are location maximums and minimums of the state constraints.)
comparing operability of the plurality of driving modes based on results of the operability evaluation of the corresponding candidate trajectories; (see at least [0042] “an algorithm to operate in one of an on-lane mode or an open-space mode to plan a first trajectory for the first route segment and… a second trajectory for the second route segment, dependent upon whether the starting point or the ending point is within the first driving area or the second driving area.”)
selecting a driving mode from the plurality of driving modes based on the comparison; (see at least [0042] “an algorithm to operate in one of an on-lane mode or an open-space mode… dependent upon whether the starting point or the ending point is within the first driving area or the second driving area. Algorithms 124 can then be uploaded on ADVs… in real-time.”)
and causing, in response to the first determination, the vehicle to operate in the driving mode by sending one or more driving related instructions to a device in the vehicle to cause the device to perform cruise control related operations. ([0097] “In response, the routing module 307 and the planning module 305 may be configured to automatically switch from operating in the on-lane mode following the first procedure to operating in the open-space mode following the second procedure.”)
Yu discloses switching driving modes based on the trajectory for each mode, but does not explicitly disclose using confidence levels to select the trajectory.
However, Djuric teaches the one or more quantitative metrics comprising at least one of a confidence level, a risk level ( [0076] “The motion planning system 128 can determine that the vehicle 104 can perform a certain action (e.g., pass an object) without increasing the potential risk to the vehicle 104” [0034] “The prediction system can provide data indicative of the plurality of predicted paths to the motion planning system, which can, for example, weigh each of the predicted paths and confidence levels when planning vehicle motion.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the trajectory selection of Yu to include the confidence levels disclosed in Djuric, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the prediction module with the ability to quantify the confidence that the trajectory will be followed, see Djuric [0085].
With respect to claim 2, Yu discloses for the driving mode, the set of values of the predicted trajectory includes a first range of predicted speeds and a second range of predicted locations along the predicted trajectory ([0041-0042] “Driving statistics 123 include information indicating the driving commands (e.g., throttle, brake, steering commands) issued and responses of the vehicles (e.g., speeds, accelerations, decelerations, directions)… information describing the driving environments at different points in time, such as, for example, routes (including starting and destination locations)… determining whether each of the starting point and the ending point is within the first driving area or the second driving area”)
Yu discloses switching driving modes based on the trajectory for each mode, but does not explicitly disclose using confidence levels to select the trajectory.
However, Djuric teaches the use of confidence levels for a way-point confidence level ([0112] “The output 800 can be further indicative of the respective trajectory confidence levels 825A-B associated with the predicted trajectories 805A-B. Each of the predicted trajectories can include a plurality of predicted way-points of the object 810. Each predicted way-point (e.g., first way-point 820A) can be associated with a way-point confidence level (e.g., first way-point confidence level 815A).”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the trajectory selection of Yu to include the confidence levels disclosed in Djuric, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the prediction module with the ability to quantify the confidence that the trajectory will be followed, see Djuric [0085].
With respect to claim 3, Yu discloses performing a second determination that the vehicle is not operable in the driving mode in response to determining that the set of values of the driving mode are outside of the maximum and minimum values associated with the another set of values of the trajectory along which the vehicle is expected to be operated. ([0097] “when the ADV 810 arrives at the point 805 a, perception module 302 may detect the ADV 810 is to be drive in the second driving area (e.g., 802). In response, the routing module 307 and the planning module 305 may be configured to automatically switch from operating in the on-lane mode following the first procedure to operating in the open-space mode following the second procedure.”)
With respect to claim 4, Yu discloses switching driving modes based on the trajectory for each mode, but does not explicitly disclose the indication that the device is operable.
However, Djuric teaches the vehicle is caused to operate in the driving mode in response to the first determination and in response to receiving a message from the device that indicates that the device is operable. (see at least [0044] “By way of example, the operations computing system 106 can send one or more control signals to the vehicle 104 instructing the vehicle 104 to enter into the fully autonomous operating mode 108A… can automatically determine when and where the vehicle 104 is to enter, change, maintain, etc. a particular operating mode (e.g., without user input).”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control of Yu to include the consideration of autonomous control being engaged disclosed in Djuric, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the control signals sent to the control component were capable of implementing the motion plan, see Djuric [0078].
With respect to claim 5, Yu discloses the cruise control related operations include a transmission, in response to the one or more driving related instructions, of one or more commands by the device to one or more apparatus in the vehicle to operate in accordance with the one or more commands. (see at least [0052] “Based on the planning and control data, control module 306 controls and drives the autonomous vehicle, by sending proper commands or signals to vehicle control system 111, according to a route or path defined by the planning and control data.”)
With respect to claim 6, Yu discloses the one or more apparatus include an engine, a brake system, a first motor associated with a throttle pedal, or a second motor associated with a brake pedal. ([0035-0036] “A throttle sensor and a braking sensor sense the throttle position and braking position of the vehicle, respectively… Throttle unit 202 is to control the speed of the motor or engine that in turn controls the speed and acceleration of the vehicle.”)
With respect to claims 7 and 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claims 7 and 14 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claims 7 and 14 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to claim 8, Yu discloses the another set of values of the trajectory includes speeds and locations along the trajectory that includes a future time value. ([0050] “Decision module 304 and/or planning module 305 examine all of the possible routes to select and modify one of the most optimal routes in view of other data provided by other modules such as traffic conditions from localization module 301, driving environment perceived by perception module 302, and traffic condition predicted by prediction module 303. The actual path or route for controlling the ADV may be close to or different from the reference line provided by routing module 307 dependent upon the specific driving environment at the point in time.”)
With respect to claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 4; therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
With respect to claim 15, Yu discloses switching driving modes based on the trajectory for each mode, but does not explicitly disclose using confidence levels to select the trajectory.
However, Djuric teaches for the driving mode, the set of values of the predicted trajectory is determined based on a confidence value that indicates a likelihood that a value falls within a range of values. ([0088] “For instance, the model 136 can output a way-point confidence level for each way-point of the first predicted trajectory 805A and each way-point of the second predicted trajectory 805B.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the trajectory selection of Yu to include the confidence levels disclosed in Djuric, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the prediction module with the ability to quantify the confidence that the trajectory will be followed, see Djuric [0085].
With respect to claim 16, Yu discloses after the first determination and before the causing the vehicle to operate in the driving mode, the method further comprises: determining whether a condition associated with operating the vehicle in the driving mode is satisfied, wherein the causing the vehicle to operate in the driving mode is performed in response to the first determination and in response to a determination that the condition is satisfied. (see at least [0055] “Routing module 307 and/or planning module 305 operate in one of an on-lane mode or an open-space mode to plan a first trajectory for the first route segment and operating in one of the on-lane mode or the open-space mode to plan a second trajectory for the second route segment, dependent upon whether the starting point or the ending point is within the first driving area or the second driving area.”)
With respect to claim 17, Yu discloses the condition for operating the vehicle in the driving mode is determined to be satisfied in response to determining that a risk level associated with operating the vehicle at a location is same as or less than a pre-determined risk level associated with operating the vehicle in the driving mode. (see at least [0097] “In one embodiment, an ADV operating in the on-lane mode in the first driving area (e.g., 801) may be configured to autonomously switch to the open-space mode in response to detecting the ADV is to be drive in the second driving area (e.g., 802).” [0022] “This trajectory planning method can be used to deal with complex driving tasks, such as driving from a city road to a free space area or driving from a free space to a city road. The method may have a good performance in obstacles avoidance.” Note: It is understood that driving in a lane would have less risk of coming across an unexpected obstacle than driving in an open space.)
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Whang et al. (US 2023/0044965 A1), hereinafter Whang.
With respect to claim 9, Yu discloses switching driving modes based on the trajectory for each mode, but does not explicitly disclose control including a maximum or minimum speed of the vehicle.
However, Whang teaches the one or more driving related instructions sent to the device includes a maximum speed of the vehicle. (see at least [0043] “based on the input reference vehicle speed, the maximum vehicle speed and the minimum vehicle speed for setting a range in which the acceleration driving and the deceleration driving are to be repeated are calculated in S400.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous control of Yu to include the speed constraints disclosed in Whang, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a variable amount of vehicle speed to provide an optimal control technology capable of simultaneously satisfying drivability and fuel efficiency improvement, see Whang [0011].
With respect to claim 11, Yu discloses switching driving modes based on the trajectory for each mode, but does not explicitly disclose control including a maximum or minimum speed of the vehicle.
However, Whang teaches the one or more driving related instructions sent to the device includes a minimum speed of the vehicle. (see at least [0043] “based on the input reference vehicle speed, the maximum vehicle speed and the minimum vehicle speed for setting a range in which the acceleration driving and the deceleration driving are to be repeated are calculated in S400.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous control of Yu to include the speed constraints disclosed in Whang, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to use a variable amount of vehicle speed to provide an optimal control technology capable of simultaneously satisfying drivability and fuel efficiency improvement, see Whang [0011].
Claims 10, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu as applied to claims 7 and 14 above, and further in view of Dornieden et al. (US 2015/0142287 A1), hereinafter Dornieden.
With respect to claim 10, Yu discloses switching driving modes based on the trajectory for each mode, but does not explicitly disclose a minimum distance, speed, acceleration data for points along the trajectory.
However, Dornieden teaches the one or more driving related instructions sent to the device includes, for each of one or more points in the trajectory along which the vehicle is expected to be driven, an acceleration, a speed, and a minimum distance between the vehicle and a second vehicle located in front of the vehicle. (see at least [0047] “The distance dx and the relative speed dv of the vehicle therefore follow the dashed line as far as the point 48.” [0046] “The control unit 11 takes the speed v, the relative speed dv… determining an activation distance range… defined by means of a minimum activation distance dxmin,on,j for each operating state j and a maximum distance dxmax,on,j.” [0054] “Graph (ii) shows the acceleration profiles of the inventive vehicle… When the ego vehicle approaches the lead vehicle, the inventive vehicle changes over from constant speed at acceleration zero to a freewheeling mode”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous control of Yu to include the control constraints disclosed in Dornieden, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more energy-efficient method, for automatic distance regulation in a driver assistance system, see Dornieden [0003].
With respect to claim 12, Yu discloses switching driving modes based on the trajectory for each mode, but does not explicitly disclose a maximum distance between vehicles.
However, Dornieden teaches the one or more driving related instructions sent to the device includes a maximum distance between the vehicle and a second vehicle located in front of the vehicle. (see at least [0046] “The activation distance range is defined by means of a minimum activation distance dxmin,on,j for each operating state j and a maximum distance dxmax,on,j. ”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous control of Yu to include the control constraints disclosed in Dornieden, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more energy-efficient method, for automatic distance regulation in a driver assistance system, see Dornieden [0003].
With respect to claim 20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 10, and it has been determined that claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 10; therefore, claim 20 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 10.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of She et al. (US 2020/0406911 A1), hereinafter She.
With respect to claim 18, Yu discloses switching driving modes based on the trajectory for each mode, but does not explicitly disclose using risk levels to select the trajectory.
However, She teaches the condition for operating the vehicle in the driving mode is determined not to be satisfied in response to determining that a risk level associated with an environment where the vehicle is operating is greater than a pre-determined risk level associated with operating the vehicle in the driving mode, the risk level being determined based on environmental factors including surrounding traffic conditions. ([0225] “In a process of controlling, by the self-driving module 413, a vehicle to travel, if the risk control module 416 determines that a current scenario exceeds a safe driving scenario fence range, the self-driving module 413 prompts a driver to take over the vehicle, or controls the vehicle to stop in a safe zone.” [0032] “a risk value in a driving mode in each time period is determined based on a traffic context in the time period such that a risk can be more objectively identified.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the trajectory selection of Yu to include the risk levels disclosed in She, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to estimate which mode is safer based on a difference between the risk values, see She [0209].
With respect to claim 19, Yu discloses switching driving modes based on the trajectory for each mode, but does not explicitly disclose using risk levels to select the trajectory.
However, She teaches determining the risk level of the environment is high by determining that a number of vehicles located around the vehicle is greater than a pre-determined threshold value or by determining that the vehicle is driving towards a traffic intersection comprising a traffic stop sign or a traffic light. (see at least [0150] “it may be understood as that h(tevent,obj) represents that occurrence of a collision risk event (obj) causes an increase in a probability of occurrence of a collision in a time period” [0162] “a traffic signal light scenario risk occurs, h(tevent,Light) represents that a probability of occurrence of violating a traffic signal light rule increases in a time period (tevent) due to occurrence of a traffic signal light risk event”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the trajectory selection of Yu to include the risk levels disclosed in She, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to estimate which mode is safer based on a difference between the risk values, see She [0209].
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669