CTNF 18/514,248 CTNF 98205 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 April 23 rd , 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 3-11, 13-16 and 18-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Upon further consideration of amended claims, additional rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 have been made below. Furthermore, the additional limitations appended to independent claims 1 and 11 do not constitute an inventive concept in view of these rejections. Examiner notes the Applicant’s arguments regarding the various paths within the three point turn path and the U-turn preceded with the limitation of “single-move” and proceeded with “without a reverse path movement” do not constitute meaningful limitations to the scope of the claim. As described further in the rejections below, a U-turn is definitionally a 180-degree turn made in a single maneuver, while a three point turn inherently includes three separate paths in the maneuver, which are apparent from what is commonly understood as a “three point turn”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1 and 11 (along with Claims 3-10, 13-16 and 18-22 due to dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the determination that it is infeasible", while Claim 11 similarly recites the limitation “determining that it is infeasible”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims, as the previous limitations claimed respectively are written as “determine whether it is feasible ” and “determining whether it is feasible ”. Furthermore, the limitation “single-move U-turn without a reverse path movement” in both claims is necessarily always true, since the very definition of a U-turn is a single, continuous 180-degree turn, and the moment any subsequent maneuver is required such as a reverse path movement, it then becomes a three-point turn. Because of these commonly understood definitions, the limitation of “generate a three point turn path for the U-turn section” is unclear to the Examiner, since a U-turn section would necessarily allow for a U-turn. For at least these reasons, claims 1 and 11 are rendered indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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, 3, 5-6, 8-11, 13-16, 18-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Analysis of the claims in view of MPEP § 2106.04 are provided below. Regarding Claim 1 : A system for a vehicle, the system comprising: a processor configured to : receive , from a navigation terminal , a driving path ; based on presence of a U-turn section on the driving path , determine whether it is feasible to make a single-move U-turn without a reverse path movement ; and based on the determination that it is infeasible to make the single-move U-turn without a reverse path movement , 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 , and wherein the reverse path is generated based on a minimum turning radius of the vehicle , wherein the reverse path is generated further using a rotational center angle based on a presence of an object within the U-turn section , and wherein the rotational center angle is determined based on a difference between a turning path of the vehicle corresponding to forward driving with the minimum turning radius and a border line of the object . Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes The claim recites a machine, which falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP § 2106.03. Step 2A Prong One Evaluation : Judicial Exception – Yes The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes. The claim recites limitations of receiving information from a navigation terminal regarding a driving path, then determining feasibility of generating either a U-turn or a three-point turn. These limitations as drafted, are simple processes that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind without further reciting significant structure or application to classify as an inventive concept. Nothing in the claim precludes the elements of the limitations from being performed in the mind. For example, a person could receive a driving path from a navigation terminal by simply observing and processing information from their vehicle’s GPS terminal. A person can also reasonably determine feasibility of a U-turn, and can reasonably generate driving paths involving both a U-turn and a three-point turn (given that the road is either too narrow for a U-turn, or there is an obstacle along the turning path). These are all processes that a person can execute reasonably in their mind, including the method of generating the reverse path of a three-point turn based on turning radii and any potential obstacles along all the paths, since it can be reasonably interpreted that a person making a three-point turn in a vehicle does not want to collide with obstacles. Thus, this step recites a mental process. Each of the limitations identified above falls within at least one of collecting and storing information, both of which fall within the bucket of “Mental Processes” of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation : Practical Application – No Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP § 2106.04, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer or generic component to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”). The additional elements recited in Claim 1 do not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application, and are merely using generic components (“processor” and “navigation terminal”) to implement an abstract idea. Examiner notes the “navigation terminal” is not even claimed as part of the system in this claim. The involvement of these elements is nothing more than generally linking the abstract idea into a particular field of use. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception (i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements are merely generally linking the abstract idea into a particular field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible. Regarding Claims 3, 5-6, 8-10 and 23 , these claims generally only further limit the abstract idea by introducing additional steps that can be performed mentally. While some of these claims include additional elements not previously discussed, they are discussed in a substantially similar manner as the additional elements in Claim 1, such as further setting target lanes, calculating arc points and rotational angles, and determinations of infeasibility based on other sources of information. Therefore, similar analysis can be used that would arrive at the same conclusion that these claims are still ineligible. Regarding Claims 11, 13-16 and 18-20 , other than falling under a different statutory category, all claimed limitations are substantially similar to that of Claims 1, 3, 5-6 and 8-10, and therefore, similar analysis can apply and these claims are also ineligible. Examiner notes that physical operation of the vehicle as controlled by component(s) of the system is suggested as part of intended use language in at least Claims 1, 11 and 23. In the event the claims are amended to positively recite the vehicle’s physical operation as implemented using the information acquired and feasibility determinations made, it will likely overcome the 101 rejection(s) noted above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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 19-23 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, 11 and 23 , Schein discloses a system, method for a vehicle, and a vehicle, the system, method and vehicle 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 whether it is feasible to make a single-move U-turn without a reverse path movement (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 ), and wherein the reverse path is generated further using a rotational center angle based on a presence of an object within the U-turn section (See 0015, “[…] laser radar of sensor system 112 may be mounted on the front of vehicle 104 and used for obstacle detection to assist vehicle safely through environments . For example, the laser radar may determine where potential obstacle(s) exist(s) in the environment and where vehicle 104 is in relation to the potential obstacle(s) . The laser radar may be configured for free space sensing and/or motion planning to detect objects and determine feasible paths for U-turn 108 at road segment 102.” See also 0040, “[…] collision-free for certain vehicle parameters […] route module 218 may determine certain dynamics using the following formulas, wherein x represents an easting coordinate, y represents a northing coordinate, Θ represents a vehicle heading , φ represents a steering angle , x' represents a derivative in the easting coordinate with respect to time, y' represents a derivative in the northing direction with respect to time, 0' represents a derivative in the steering angle with respect to time, u represents velocity of a vehicle, and L represents wheelbase of the vehicle, assuming u = u Q and constrain steering angle […]”). But does not explicitly disclose based on the determination that it is infeasible to make the single-move U-turn without a reverse path movement, 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, and wherein the rotational center angle is determined based on a difference between a turning path of the vehicle corresponding to forward driving with the minimum turning radius and a border line of the object. Oh, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches based on the determination that it is infeasible to make the single-move U-turn without a reverse path movement, 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 ), and PNG media_image2.png 629 455 media_image2.png Greyscale wherein the rotational center angle is determined based on a difference between a turning path of the vehicle corresponding to forward driving with the minimum turning radius and a border line of the object (See 0014, “[…] plurality of U-turn strategies may include at least two U-turn strategies among a first U-turn strategy of a U-turn with a first radius , a second U-turn strategy of a U-turn with a second radius , a third U-turn strategy of a U-turn following after a U-turn of a preceding vehicle, a fourth U-turn strategy of a U-turn restarted after a short stop during the U-turn, and a fifth U-turn strategy of a U-turn restarted after reversing during the U-turn .” See also 0026, “[…] located in front of the autonomous driving vehicle during the U-turn of the autonomous driving vehicle , extracting a drivable region based on a distribution of static objects […]”). 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 and objects within the turn path, 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 all vehicles are capable of engaging in both a three point turn and a U-turn. 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 with an object 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 6-8, 16 and 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 claim s 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, based on the difference, the rotational center angle so that a corner point of a front bumper of the vehicle avoids colliding with the object; and calculate a minimum reverse point in the reverse path of the vehicle based on the rotational center angle. Liu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the processor is further configured to: calculate, based on the difference, the 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 in the reverse path 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 Claim 7 , Schein further discloses the system of claim 6, 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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Zhu et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2020/0346691 A1), which is directed towards precise planning and control of autonomous vehicles through three-point turns . 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 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 2 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 3 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 4 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 5 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 6 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 7 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 8 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 9 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 10 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 11 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 12 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 13 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 14 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 15 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 16 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 17 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 18 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 19 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 20 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 21 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/514,248 Page 22 Art Unit: 3658
Prosecution Insights