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 .
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.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments and amendments, filed November 18th, 2025, have overcome each and every claim objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action sent on August 18th, 2025.
Applicant's arguments and amendments, filed November 18th, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the supporting reference, Oh (US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0004011 A1), fails to teach a reverse path during the three-point turn. Examiner notes Oh explicitly states in [0058]-[0059], further accompanied by Fig. 2E, “after reversing during the U-turn”. Despite the fact that a reverse path is necessarily present in a three-point turn, or else the maneuver is not possible or wouldn’t be classified as a “three-point turn”, Oh mentions the presence of the reverse path and it is clearly shown within the associated figure. Applicant further argues that Oh simply states that “Fig. 2E illustrates a type of U-turn restarted after reversing during the U-turn.” Examiner emphasizes the term “during” in this quote, and restates that a reverse path is present within the reference.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-11, 13-15 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Schein et al. (WO Patent Pub. No. 2017/123234 A1), herein “Schein”, in view of Oh (US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0004011 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Schein discloses a system and method for a vehicle, the system and method comprising a processor configured to:
receive, from a navigation terminal, a driving path (See 0026, “Information module 212 may be configured to receive geographic information of a destination and geographic information of a current location at road segment […]” See also 0036, “Routing module 218 may be configured to determine a feasible route based on the U-turn cost parameter using a path routing algorithm. A feasible route refers to a driving path or map in which vehicle 104 may move from a current location to a destination.” See also 0043, “[…] processor(s) 202 may receive sensor data and/or geographic information of a destination and geographic information of road segment 102, and/or vehicle information of vehicle […]” Examiner notes the routing module may determine a feasible route which is received by the information module, thus being the same as the navigation terminal);
based on presence of a U-turn section on the driving path, determine that it is infeasible to make a single-move U-turn (See 0036 as referenced above. See also 0020, “Driving assistance system 110 may evaluate feasibility of a U-turn along a path between the current location and the destination using the geographic information […] calculate U-turn cost associated with the U-turn representative of the feasibility […] determine a feasible route between the current location and the destination based on the U-turn cost parameter using a path routing algorithm […] if the calculated U-turn cost associated with each of one or more U-turns along the path between the current location and the destination is less than the threshold value, then driving assistance system 110 may determine a feasible route that may include such one or more U-turns to avoid other path(s) having at least one U-turn having a U- turn cost greater than the threshold value.”);
wherein the reverse path is generated based on a minimum turning radius of the vehicle (See 0031, “[…] the turning radius of a U-turn may refer to the smallest circular turn that the vehicle may make without hitting a street curb with a wheel or without scraping a wall around the street by vehicle 104. The turning radius of vehicle 104 may be calculated based on parameters of vehicle 104.” Examiner notes the turning radius of the U-turn referring to the smallest circular turn is the same as a minimum circular turn, thus being a minimum turning radius).
But does not explicitly disclose based on the determination that it is infeasible to make the single-move U-turn, generate a three point turn path for the U-turn section,
wherein the three point turn path includes a primary forward path, a reverse path, and a secondary forward path.
Oh, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches based on the determination that it is infeasible to make the single-move U-turn, generate a three point turn path for the U-turn section (See Fig. 2E below and 0058-0059, “[…] U-turn strategies that are learned for each situation by a U-turn strategy determining device of an autonomous driving vehicle […] FIG. 2E illustrates a type of a U-turn restarted after reversing during the U-turn.” See also 0022, “[…] the plurality of U-turn strategies may be matched with scores corresponding to the learning result […] and/or a fifth U-turn strategy of a U-turn restarted after reversing during the U-turn.” Examiner notes the U-turn strategy referenced in Fig. 2E is clearly a three point turn, where the vehicle reverses during the U-turn maneuver in order to avoid collision in the first move, which would only be necessary if a single-move U-turn is infeasible),
PNG
media_image1.png
630
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the three point turn path includes a primary forward path, a reverse path, and a secondary forward path (See Fig. 2E and 0058-0059 as referenced above. See also Fig. 2D below and 0087, “[…] drivable region means a region on a lane opposite to a lane where the autonomous driving vehicle is located […] when the autonomous driving vehicle is located in a lane for traveling from one direction to the other direction, the opposite lane means a lane for traveling from the other direction to one direction.” Examiner notes in Fig. 2D, the opposing lane being the target lane to be entered to initiate the three point turn, and this path necessarily being the first to be traversed in the three point turn process, means it is the primary forward path. Furthermore, Fig. 2E clearly shows a three point turn between two opposing lanes, where the vehicle must first traverse along a forward path to reach a stopping point in the opposing lane, then engage on the reverse path before travelling along the secondary forward path which is obviously in the direction of the originally opposite lane; therefore, the reversing arrow and arrow facing down show the presence of a reverse path and secondary forward path respectively).
PNG
media_image2.png
629
455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Schein’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system and method for determining feasibility of U-turns and generating paths for the vehicle as disclosed by Schein, the ability to generate three point turns as well when a single-move U-turn is determined to be infeasible, wherein the reverse path of the three point turn is generated based on a minimum turning radius, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Schein already discloses calculating a cost for each maneuver and searching for paths with the least cost when compared to a threshold value, and a three point turn is semantically the same as a U-turn, where all vehicles are capable of engaging in both. Specifically separating the generated paths into either a U-turn or a three point turn can improve the system’s safety and reliability when the first move of the turn may potentially result in a collision if the vehicle does not reverse after stopping the first move; and this maneuver further enables the avoidance of the vehicle from hitting a street curb with a wheel or scraping a wall around the street, as directly taught by Schein.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Schein does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to:
set a target lane to be entered by the three point turn path; and
generate the three point turn path for entering the target lane as the primary forward path.
Oh, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the processor is further configured to:
set a target lane to be entered by the three point turn path (See Fig. 2D-2E, 0058-0059 and 0087 as referenced above. See also Fig. 2D above and 0088, “[…] extract the drivable region based on a position of the autonomous driving vehicle on the precise map […] the drivable region means a region on the lane opposite to the lane where the autonomous driving vehicle is located.” Examiner notes Fig. 2D shows how any of the U-turn strategies (including the three point turn) requires entering the opposing lane as the first move, which is universally how the U-turn maneuver is understood, and the drivable region is set as the opposite lane, thus being the same as the target lane to be entered by the three point turn path); and
generate the three point turn path for entering the target lane as a primary forward path (See Fig. 2D-2E, 0058-0059 and 0087-0088 as referenced above. Examiner notes the opposing lane being the target lane to be entered to initiate the three point turn, and this path necessarily being the first to be traversed in the three point turn process, means it is the primary forward path).
In view of Schein’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system and method for determining feasibility of U-turns and generating paths for the vehicle as disclosed by Schein, the ability to set a target lane to be entered and a primary forward path for a three point turn maneuver when a single-move U-turn is determined to be infeasible, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Schein already discloses calculating a cost for each maneuver and searching for paths with the least cost when compared to a threshold value, and the very definition of a three point turn involves the sequence of travelling along a primary forward path first, which is always in a target lane to be entered.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Schein does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 3 and method of claim 13, wherein the vehicle is configured to drive along the primary forward path until a distance between the vehicle and an object located on the primary forward path reaches a predetermined threshold distance.
Oh, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the vehicle is configured to drive along the primary forward path until a distance between the vehicle and an object located on the primary forward path reaches a predetermined threshold distance (See Fig. 2D-2E, 0058-0059 and 0087-0088 as referenced above. See also 0016, “[…] adjust a score of each U-turn strategy corresponding to a current situation based on a risk obtained during the U-turn of the autonomous driving vehicle […] may be the number of warnings of a collision with a surrounding obstacle (vehicle, object, or the like).” See also 0071, “[…] receives an electromagnetic wave reflected from an object after the electromagnetic wave is emitted, and measures a distance to the object, a direction of the object, and the like.” See also 0081-0084, “[…] extracts, from the object information and the infrastructure information, first group data for inhibiting a collision with a preceding vehicle that is U-turning ahead in front of the autonomous driving vehicle when the autonomous driving vehicle is U-turning […] inhibiting a collision with a neighboring vehicle during the U-turn […] inhibiting a collision with a pedestrian during the U-turn […]” Examiner notes inhibiting a collision with various objects, whether vehicles, pedestrians or the like, is the same as the predetermined threshold distance to the object being zero).
In view of Schein’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system and method for determining feasibility of U-turns and generating paths for the vehicle as disclosed by Schein, the ability to travel along the primary forward path of a three point turn maneuver until the distance to an object reaches a predetermined threshold, with a reasonable expectation of success, since avoiding collisions with objects, vehicles or pedestrians is obviously undesirable, and stopping the vehicle prior to potential collision creates safety during the turning process while also allowing the vehicle to engage in the next step of the three point turn which is reversal.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Schein further discloses the system of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to:
calculate arc points for the minimum turning radius with respect to a center of a front bumper of the vehicle (See Fig. 3-4 below and 0030-0031, “[…] may include various static parameters (e.g., a length of vehicle 104, a width of vehicle 104, and vehicle tow ratings), control parameters (e.g., steering parameters, braking parameters, and throttle parameters), and/or performance parameters (e.g., a speed, a heading, and a location) associated with vehicle 104. A turning radius of vehicle 104 refers to the radius of a circular turn that vehicle 104 is capable of making […] may refer to the smallest circular turn that the vehicle may make without hitting a street curb with a wheel or without scraping a wall around the street by vehicle […] may be calculated based on parameters of vehicle 104.” Examiner notes Fig. 3 shows route planning along the U-turn path using nodes where each sequence of nodes links a source to a destination, thus acting as arc points along the path. Furthermore, Fig. 4 shows that at each point along the turn, the vehicle’s heading, steering angle and coordinates (along with its derivatives over time) are able to be tracked, thus allowing the calculations for the “minimum” turning radius of the vehicle with respect to anywhere on the vehicle’s exterior).
PNG
media_image3.png
875
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
881
605
media_image4.png
Greyscale
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to generate the reverse path including the calculated arc points.
Oh, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the processor is further configured to generate the reverse path including the calculated arc points (See Fig. 2D-2E, 0058-0059 and 0087-0088 as referenced above).
In view of Schein’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system and method for determining feasibility of U-turns and generating paths using sequences of nodes incorporating the turning radius of the vehicle as disclosed by Schein, the ability to generate a reverse path based on these nodes during a three point turn maneuver, with a reasonable expectation of success, since these nodes are calculated using all relevant parameters of the vehicle, and using a minimum turning radius to determine the proper nodes to travel towards, whether forwards or in reverse, improves the overall efficiency and reliability of the system during the three point turn process.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Schein further discloses the system of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to:
calculate arc points for the minimum turning radius with respect to a center of a front bumper of the vehicle (See Fig. 3-4 and 0030-0031 as referenced above); and
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to generate the secondary forward path based on the calculated arc points.
Oh, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the processor is further configured to generate the secondary forward path based on the calculated arc points (See Fig. 2D-2E, 0058-0059 and 0087-0088 as referenced above).
In view of Schein’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system and method for determining feasibility of U-turns and generating paths using sequences of nodes incorporating the turning radius of the vehicle as disclosed by Schein, the ability to generate a secondary forward path based on these nodes during a three point turn maneuver, with a reasonable expectation of success, since these nodes are calculated using all relevant parameters of the vehicle, and using a minimum turning radius to determine the proper nodes to travel towards, whether forwards or in reverse, improves the overall efficiency and reliability of the system during the three point turn process.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Schein further discloses the system of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to determine that it is infeasible to make the single-move U-turn based on at least one of surrounding information detected by a detection device or road information extracted from map data (See 0014-0015, “[…] sensors detect environmental parameters and vehicle parameters, and provide geographic information and vehicle information of a current situation […] sensor system 112 may be mounted on the front of vehicle 104 and used for obstacle detection to assist vehicle safely through environments […] may determine where potential obstacle(s) exist(s) in the environment and where vehicle 104 is in relation to the potential obstacle(s) […] may be configured for free space sensing and/or motion planning to detect objects and determine feasible paths for U-turn […]”).
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Schein does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 11 and system of claim 1, further comprising:
controlling, based on the generated three point turn path, autonomous driving of the vehicle along the primary forward path, the reverse path, and the secondary forward path,
wherein the single-move U-turn is a maneuver that enables the vehicle to complete a U- turn without necessitating any reverse movement of the vehicle.
Oh, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches controlling, based on the generated three point turn path, autonomous driving of the vehicle along the primary forward path, the reverse path, and the secondary forward path (See Fig. 2D-2E, 0058-0059 and 0087-0088 as referenced above. See also 0063, “[…] the controller 40 may perform the deep learning by dividing the various situation information to be considered for the safety during the U-turn of the autonomous driving vehicle into the groups and perform the various controls desired in the process of determining the U-turn strategy of the autonomous driving vehicle based on such learned result.”),
wherein the single-move U-turn is a maneuver that enables the vehicle to complete a U- turn without necessitating any reverse movement of the vehicle (See Fig. 2B below. Examiner notes Fig. 2B is yet another type of U-turn strategy, in this instance comprising a large radius where no reverse movement is necessitated, as shown clearly by the arrow depicting the turning path of the vehicle during the maneuver).
PNG
media_image5.png
574
416
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of Schein’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system and method for determining feasibility of U-turns and generating paths using sequences of nodes incorporating the turning radius of the vehicle as disclosed by Schein, the ability to control the vehicle autonomously along the turning path(s) including a U-turn without reverse movement, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the vehicle is already present within the system, and can simply be an autonomous vehicle, and removing the need to include a reverse path in a U-turn when the turning radius is physically large enough improves system efficiency by enabling the vehicle to execute the maneuver more quickly.
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schein et al. (WO Patent Pub. No. 2017/123234 A1), in view of Oh (US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0004011 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN Patent Pub. No. 116022172 A), herein “Liu”.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Schein in view of Oh does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to:
calculate a rotational center angle so that a corner point of a front bumper of the vehicle avoids colliding with an object, such that, based on the calculated rotational center angle, the vehicle moves forward to the minimum turning radius; and
calculate a minimum reverse point of the vehicle based on the rotational center angle.
Liu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the processor is further configured to:
calculate a rotational center angle so that a corner point of a front bumper of the vehicle avoids colliding with an object, such that, based on the calculated rotational center angle, the vehicle moves forward to the minimum turning radius (See 00200-00207, “[…] x1 is the abscissa of the first switching point, y1 is the ordinate of the first switching point, Ox is the abscissa of the second coordinate, Oy is the ordinate of the second coordinate, w is the width of the vehicle, and the vehicle parameters include the vehicle width, is the first angle […] the distance between the minimum turning radius and the target lane is calculated, and the minimum distance is obtained from the calculated distances to determine the turning corresponding to the minimum distance The minimum value of the radius, the minimum value of the turning radius is the minimum value of the turning radius closest to the target lane […] calculate the exit point according to the first angle and the minimum value of the turning radius closest to the target lane.” See also 00225, “[…] by determining the turning point from the dimension of the point (based on the first maximum value of the turning radius) and the dimension of the side (based on the second maximum value of the turning radius), the turning point can avoid the first turning point. The point of the second obstacle can avoid the side of the second obstacle, so that the turning point has higher reliability and effectiveness […]” See also 00246, “[…] α is the turning angle, Rc is the preset minimum turning radius, and d1 is the distance from the center of rotation of the vehicle to the target lane.”); and
calculate a minimum reverse point of the vehicle based on the rotational center angle (See 00250, “[…] coordinates of the second switching point can also be calculated in combination with the preset minimum turning radius […] calculate the coordinates of the second switching point according to the third angle, the starting point of the U-turn, and the preset minimum turning radius […]” See also 00256, “[…] the vehicle U-turn path can be generated in combination with the switching points in the scenarios.” Examiner notes the switching point is the same as the reverse point, and is based on a combination of vehicle parameters including a rotational angle referencing the center of the vehicle, the starting point of the U-turn, and the minimum turning radius).
In view of Liu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system and method for determining feasibility of U-turns and generating paths using sequences of nodes incorporating the turning radius of the vehicle, distance to objects in the opposing lane and the various paths along the three point turn as taught by Schein in view of Oh, the ability to calculate a rotational angle referenced from the front-center of the vehicle to enable a minimum turning radius while using this angle to calculate a point of reversal, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the vehicle system already comprises the necessary processes and sensors to perform this calculation, and doing so increases the reliability and effectiveness of the U-turn maneuver as taught by Liu.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Schein further discloses the system of claim 6 and method of claim 16, wherein the vehicle is configured to move backward with maximum steering to the minimum reverse point (See 0037-0039, “[…] to determine more than one sequence of links (e.g., possible paths), including U-turns and non-U-turns, connecting a source node (e.g., current location) and a destination node (e.g., destination) […] certain information may include allowable configurations of one or more paths associated with the feasible route, and constraints (e.g., the max steering angle) associated with the one or more paths and vehicle 104.”).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Schein in view of Oh teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to:
generate the secondary forward path based on the turning radius of the vehicle (See Fig. 2D-2E, 0058-0059 and 0087-0088 as referenced above).
But does not explicitly disclose or teach the processor is further configured to:
calculate an equation of a substantially straight line of a target lane;
calculate a turning radius of the vehicle based on the equation of the substantially straight line.
Liu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the processor is further configured to:
calculate an equation of a substantially straight line of a target lane (See 0053, “[…] determine the starting point of the U-turn where the vehicle avoids the obstacle in the U-turn scene, and according to the U-turn starting point and the intersection in the U-turn scene The size attribute of is used to determine the position point where the vehicle starts to go straight (the exit point), so as to combine the U-turn starting point and the exit point to generate the U-turn path of the vehicle.”);
calculate a turning radius of the vehicle based on the equation of the substantially straight line (See 00129-00132, “[…] a line segment formed by connecting obstacle point a and obstacle point b, and the second starting point information may be determined based on the line segment […] to prevent the vehicle from colliding with the side of the first obstacle (including the end point on the side), the distance from the optimal turn-in point to the line segment of the first obstacle is greater than the turning radius outside the vehicle.” See 00200-00201, “[…] x1 is the abscissa of the first switching point, y1 is the ordinate of the first switching point, Ox is the abscissa of the second coordinate, Oy is the ordinate of the second coordinate […] determine the turning point according to the minimum value of the turning radius.”).
In view of Liu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system and method for determining feasibility of U-turns and generating paths using sequences of nodes incorporating the turning radius of the vehicle, distance to objects in the opposing lane and the various paths along the three point turn as taught by Schein in view of Oh, the ability to calculate a turning radius of the vehicle using a straight line of a target lane as a parameter, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the vehicle system already comprises the necessary processes and sensors to perform this calculation, and doing so increases the reliability and effectiveness of the U-turn maneuver as taught by Liu.
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 Bryant Tang whose telephone number is (571)270-0145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 CST.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/BRYANT TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights