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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0036847, filed on 03/21/2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 03/16/2026 are presently examined. Claims 1-3, 5, 9-12, 14-16, and 19-20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 USC 112(a), the amendments result in the withdrawal of the previous rejection.
Regarding 35 USC 102, Applicant’s arguments regarding Hiramatsu are unpersuasive.
Hiramatsu discloses modify, based on the drivable area, a path after a control target point in a driving path of the vehicle to avoid a collision with the static object ([FIG. 10] [0142] "Making a lane change before turning at the intersection 62 … on which the own vehicle 63 can avoid and pass the parked vehicle 65." The initial trajectory in FIG. 10 is in lane 101. The ego vehicle would have initially turned at the intersection onto lane 105. However, with the static vehicle 65 blocking lane 105, the ego vehicle 63 has to modify its initial trajectory starting at some point ahead of the vehicle by changing from lane 101 to lane 102 before entering the intersection. Since a line trajectory is simply a continuous sequence of points in space and time, the control target point is located where the vehicle begins to change lanes. [0076] “steering control for turning at the intersection 62 and steering control for avoidance of the parked vehicle 65 are not continuous and are performed separately. That is, the own vehicle 63 travels straight along the regular travel line 64 between steering to turn at the intersection 62 and steering to avoid the parked vehicle 65.” Separate trajectories.); and
control a movement of the vehicle along the driving path comprising the modified path ([FIG. 10] the vehicle 63 is autonomous, controlled on the initial trajectory in lane 101, and controlled on the modified trajectory to change lanes to lane 102 through the intersection into the new lane 106 to avoid the vehicle. [0076] “steering control for turning at the intersection 62 and steering control for avoidance of the parked vehicle 65 are not continuous and are performed separately. That is, the own vehicle 63 travels straight along the regular travel line 64 between steering to turn at the intersection 62 and steering to avoid the parked vehicle 65.”);
wherein the control target point is determined based on a speed of the vehicle ([0123] “set a product V×T of the standard avoidance time T and velocity V of the own vehicle 63 as the predetermined distance Dt.” [0124] “FIG. 7B … determines not to integrate steering control when the distance D between the turning position and the avoidance position is longer than the predetermined distance Dt.” [FIG. 7A] VxT distance calculation is smaller than Dt which results in much earlier change in trajectory compared to FIG. 7B. In FIG. 7B, the control point of modifying the trajectory starts much later than FIG. 7A because VxT is larger than Dt. This decision of where and when to alter the trajectory to avoid the static vehicle after the intersection is therefore based on the velocity of the vehicle due to the D=VxT equation.).
Regarding 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments regarding Hiramatsu are similarly unpersuasive.
Hiramatsu discloses wherein the control target point is located in the intersection and is located within a lane in which the vehicle is driving before crossing the intersection, and wherein a path before the control target point in the driving path of the vehicle is unmodified such that the movement of the vehicle is controlled along the unmodified path before the control target point and is controlled along the modified path after the control target point ([FIG. 10] as cited in claim 1, the control target point is where the vehicle decides to alter its course from its initial trajectory. The vehicle is on its initial trajectory in lane 101 and the control target point is ahead of the vehicle where the vehicle decides to change lanes before crossing the intersection into lane 102. The vehicle drives a portion of the trajectory on the unmodified path in lane 101 before entering onto the modified path into lane 102, which is after the control target point, before crossing the intersection.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiramatsu et al. (US 20220089185 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hiramatsu.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Hiramatsu discloses An autonomous driving control apparatus comprising: a memory storing map data comprising road information ([0038] "The navigation system 20 recognizes a current position of the own vehicle and road map information at the current position.");
a sensor configured to detect an object ([0034] "The surrounding environment sensor group 10 may include a ranging device 11 and a camera 12. The ranging device 11 and the camera 12 detect the surrounding environment around the own vehicle, such as an object present in the surroundings around the own vehicle, relative positions between the own vehicle and the object, and distance between the own vehicle and the object."); and
a processor coupled to the memory and the sensor ([FIG. 1] processor 41 coupled to the sensor and navigation system which includes map database 23 [0040] "The navigation system 20 includes a navigation controller 21, a positioning device 22, a map database 23"), wherein the processor is configured to: determine, using the sensor, a static object located in an exit section of an intersection associated with a vehicle, ([FIG. 11A] step S5 "does own vehicle turn at intersection" and step S6 "is parked vehicle present" [see other figures for examples of the parked vehicle in relation to the own vehicle and intersection]) wherein the static object is determined based on a relative position of the static object to a line of a lane in which the static object is located ([0142] “Making a lane change before turning at the intersection 62 in this way enables the own vehicle 63, which is traveling on the lane 101 and is to enter the lane 105 on which the parked vehicle 65 is present, to be prevented from making a lane change in the intersection 62 to enter the lane 106 on which the own vehicle 63 can avoid and pass the parked vehicle 65.” [FIG. 10] parked vehicle 65 is in lane 105. The position of the parked vehicle in that lane is used to determine whether to change lanes. [FIG. 11B] see also step S13 which uses the lateral position of the parked vehicle to adjust the own vehicle’s avoidance trajectory.);
determine, based on a location of the static object and the road information included in the map data ([0044] "The map database 23 stores road map data." [0101] "The position (Xpn, Ypn) of the other vehicle may be, for example, coordinates in … the map database 23"), a drivable area ([0062] "The controller 40 generates a target travel trajectory … based on the surrounding environment information" [see FIG. 10] distances D and IL define drivable area for ego vehicle 63. [FIG. 11B] decision making for how to determine the trajectory around the parked vehicle, i.e., drivable area.);
modify, based on the drivable area, a path after a control target point in a driving path of the vehicle to avoid a collision with the static object ([FIG. 10] [0142] "Making a lane change before turning at the intersection 62 … on which the own vehicle 63 can avoid and pass the parked vehicle 65." The initial trajectory in FIG. 10 is in lane 101. The ego vehicle would have initially turned at the intersection onto lane 105. However, with the static vehicle 65 blocking lane 105, the ego vehicle 63 has to modify its initial trajectory starting at some point ahead of the vehicle by changing from lane 101 to lane 102 before entering the intersection. Since a line trajectory is simply a continuous sequence of points in space and time, the control target point is located where the vehicle begins to change lanes. [0076] “steering control for turning at the intersection 62 and steering control for avoidance of the parked vehicle 65 are not continuous and are performed separately. That is, the own vehicle 63 travels straight along the regular travel line 64 between steering to turn at the intersection 62 and steering to avoid the parked vehicle 65.” Separate trajectories.); and
control a movement of the vehicle along the driving path comprising the modified path ([FIG. 10] the vehicle 63 is autonomous, controlled on the initial trajectory in lane 101, and controlled on the modified trajectory to change lanes to lane 102 through the intersection into the new lane 106 to avoid the vehicle. [0076] “steering control for turning at the intersection 62 and steering control for avoidance of the parked vehicle 65 are not continuous and are performed separately. That is, the own vehicle 63 travels straight along the regular travel line 64 between steering to turn at the intersection 62 and steering to avoid the parked vehicle 65.”);
wherein the control target point is determined based on a speed of the vehicle ([0123] “set a product V×T of the standard avoidance time T and velocity V of the own vehicle 63 as the predetermined distance Dt.” [0124] “FIG. 7B … determines not to integrate steering control when the distance D between the turning position and the avoidance position is longer than the predetermined distance Dt.” [FIG. 7A] VxT distance calculation is smaller than Dt which results in much earlier change in trajectory compared to FIG. 7B. In FIG. 7B, the control point of modifying the trajectory starts much later than FIG. 7A because VxT is larger than Dt. This decision of where and when to alter the trajectory to avoid the static vehicle after the intersection is therefore based on the velocity of the vehicle due to the D=VxT equation.).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Hiramatsu discloses The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the drivable area by excluding the location of the static object from a lane on which the vehicle is traveling and from an adjacent lane that is next to the lane on which the vehicle is traveling ([see at least FIG. 10] for drivable area determined that excludes the static object and includes the adjacent lane. [Also see FIG. 11B] flowchart which includes the parked vehicle behind intersection and step S14 which is avoiding the parked vehicle and returning to regular travel line after passing.) and wherein the lane in which the static object is located corresponds to a lane, of an initial driving path of the vehicle, located beyond the exit section of the intersection ([FIG. 10] ego vehicle 63 in lane 101 would enter lane 105 after intersection, but parked vehicle 65 is in that initial driving path lane beyond the exit of the intersection.).
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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ollis (US 20220219682 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ollis.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Hiramatsu discloses The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
wherein the control target point is located in the intersection and is located within a lane in which the vehicle is driving before crossing the intersection, and wherein a path before the control target point in the driving path of the vehicle is unmodified such that the movement of the vehicle is controlled along the unmodified path before the control target point and is controlled along the modified path after the control target point ([FIG. 10] as cited in claim 1, the control target point is where the vehicle decides to alter its course from its initial trajectory. The vehicle is on its initial trajectory in lane 101 and the control target point is ahead of the vehicle where the vehicle decides to change lanes before crossing the intersection into lane 102. The vehicle drives a portion of the trajectory on the unmodified path in lane 101 before entering onto the modified path into lane 102, which is after the control target point, before crossing the intersection.).
Hiramatsu fails to explicitly disclose determine the static object by determining, based on a moving speed of the object detected by the sensor and based on the road information, that the object detected by the sensor is the static object ([0006] “determining presence or absence of a parked vehicle ahead on a route of an own vehicle”).
However, Ollis teaches determine the static object by determining, based on a moving speed of the object detected by the sensor and based on the road information, that the object detected by the sensor is the static object ([0027] “An obstructed lane condition 305 is detected by the system 501 by i) detecting an object ahead of the automated vehicle 301; ii) determining that the object is in the same lane 303A as the current lane that the automated vehicle 301 is traveling; and iii) detecting that object is stationary (i.e., zero speed)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiramatsu to include Ollis’ teaching of determining that an object in the lane the ego vehicle wants to use is stationary based on the speed being zero. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to determine whether a detected object is stationary, based on its movement speed, in order to build a trajectory to safely pass the stationary object (Ollis [0033] “The trajectory 310 may be based on the current path and allows for a departure into a neighboring lane to safely pass a obstructed lane condition.”).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zuo (US 20200341474 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zuo.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Hiramatsu fails to explicitly disclose The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine, in the drivable area, a reference path;
determine a portion of the reference path in an optimization target section; and
optimize the portion of the reference path in the optimization target section.
However, Zuo teaches determine, in the drivable area, a reference path ([0004] “defining an envelope based on the information of the external environment, wherein the envelope defines a predicted travelable region of the vehicle in a subsequent predetermined time period; generating a reference path”);
determine a portion of the reference path in an optimization target section ([0004] “generate a reference path for the subsequent predetermined time period based on the envelope”); and
optimize the portion of the reference path in the optimization target section ([0004] “modifying the reference path based on a current lateral state of the vehicle or a road marker within the external environment, so as to generate the autonomous driving trajectory of the vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiramatsu with Zuo‘s teaching of generating a reference path within the envelope drivable area and modifying the reference path of the subsequent time period based on the environment to generate a driving trajectory. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to include perform the above steps in order to optimize and modify the reference path to maintain safety and comfort of the passengers (Zuo [0048] “the current lateral state of the vehicle includes a heading of the vehicle or a lateral deviation from a central line of a road. For example, in consideration of the heading of the vehicle, the reference path generated in step 203 is modified so as to avoid emergency turn of the vehicle, which may affect the safety and comfort of passengers.”).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu in view of Zuo as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Mian et al. (US 20140018996 A1) and Yasui et al. (US 20190220021 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mian and Yasui, respectively.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Hiramatsu discloses The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a control target point on an initial driving path of the vehicle, wherein the control target point is located in the intersection and is located within a lane in which the vehicle is driving before crossing the intersection ([FIG. 10] as cited in claim 1, the control target point is where the vehicle decides to alter its course from its initial trajectory. The vehicle is on its initial trajectory in lane 101 and the control target point is ahead of the vehicle where the vehicle decides to change lanes before crossing the intersection into lane 102. The vehicle drives a portion of the trajectory on the unmodified path in lane 101 before entering onto the modified path into lane 102, which is after the control target point, before crossing the intersection.);
determine, based on information about the static object and based on the map data, an entry target lane section ([see at least FIG. 10] target lane 106 based on static object 65.);
Hiramatsu fails to disclose determine whether a straight line connecting the control target point and one point of the entry target lane section intersects a boundary of the drivable area; and
However, Mian teaches determine whether a straight line connecting the control target point and one point of the entry target lane section intersects a boundary of the drivable area ([FIG. 3A] vehicle initial path 60 intersects an obstacle 2, intersecting the drivable boundary. [FIG. 3B] vehicle searches for way around obstacle to get to the target position 52. [FIG. 3C] vehicle modifies initial path to make curved path around obstacle to stay in a drivable boundary.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiramatsu with Mian‘s teaching of detecting if an initial path intersects with an obstacle, which is intersecting the vehicle’s drivable boundary. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to include determine if a vehicle’s initial path intersects a drivable boundary in order to plan a path that avoids obstacles (Mian [0002] “efficiently planning a path to a destination that avoids obstacles.”).
Hiramatsu fails to disclose based on a determination that the straight line does not intersect the boundary of the drivable area, determine an intersection point of straight lines that are generated based on headings at the control target point and the one point of the entry target lane section, wherein
the reference path is determined based on the control target point, the one point of the entry target lane section, and the intersection point.
However, Yasui teaches based on a determination that the straight line does not intersect the boundary of the drivable area, determine an intersection point of straight lines that are generated based on headings at the control target point and the one point of the entry target lane section ([at least FIG. 5] start point Xi, target lane point Xt0, intersection of straight lines point Xx.), wherein
the reference path is determined based on the control target point, the one point of the entry target lane section, and the intersection point ([FIG. 6] driving path Xf is generated based on the above points and intersection of straight lines into target lane, avoiding the non-drivable area Lo.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiramatsu with Yasui‘s teaching of determining the vehicle trajectory at an intersection using two straight lines from a starting point and a target exit lane point and an intersection point of the two lines and forming a curve based on the above points and lines. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to include the above method of determining the trajectory of the vehicle in order to produce a smooth trajectory (Yasui [0008] “the future travel trajectory of the vehicle may be determined as a trajectory formed only of the arc, or a trajectory smoothly connecting the arc and straight lines … a smooth trajectory”).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu in view of Zuo as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Ma (US 20210333302 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ma.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Hiramatsu fails to disclose The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 4 wherein the processor is configured to determine the reference path based on a quadratic Bezier curve.
However, Ma teaches the processor is configured to determine the reference path based on a quadratic Bezier curve ([0074] “based on the initial Bezier curve, the positions of the interpolation points and the tangent line at each interpolation point, according to the preset quadratic Bezier curve determination rule, determine the target Bezier curve for indicating the target trajectory.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiramatsu with Ma‘s teaching of determining a target trajectory using a quadratic Bezier curve. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to include a quadratic Bezier curve for pathing in order to simulate an accurate motion trajectory that is smooth and close to reality (Ma [0075] “it may accurately simulate an actual motion trajectory and an instantaneous direction of the object, so that a visualized result is smooth, continuous and close to reality.”).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu in view of Zuo as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN 113031592 A), hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Hiramatsu fails to disclose The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to optimize the portion of the reference path in the optimization target section based on a quadratic programming optimization scheme.
However, Zhou teaches the processor is configured to optimize the portion of the reference path in the optimization target section based on a quadratic programming optimization scheme. ([0081] “The quadratic programming algorithm is used to solve the problem and obtain the optimal smooth path connecting the starting point and the target point, as shown in Figure 6.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiramatsu with Zhou‘s teaching of path planning using a quadratic programming algorithm. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to include Zhou’s use of a quadratic programming algorithm for path planning in order to determine the optimal smooth path (Zhou [0081] “obtain the optimal smooth path connecting the starting point and the target point”).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu in view of Zuo as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Michalakis (US 20180218606 A1), hereinafter referred to as Michalakis.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Hiramatsu fails to disclose The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to optimize the portion of the reference path in the optimization target section based on a collision determination condition and a curvature limit condition.
However, Michalakis teaches the processor is configured to optimize the portion of the reference path in the optimization target section based on a collision determination condition and a curvature limit condition ([0049] “the likelihood of a collision with the surrounding vehicle 100 can be based on the current path of the host vehicle 200, the location and orientation of the surrounding vehicle 100, and/or the ability of the host vehicle 200 to modify the current path. The ability of the host vehicle 200 to modify the current path can be based on the distance between the host vehicle 200 and surrounding vehicle 100, the turn radius capabilities of the host vehicle 200, the trajectory and speed of the surrounding vehicle 100, the speed of the host vehicle 200, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiramatsu with Michalakis’ teaching of modifying the current path of the vehicle based on the collision likelihood with a nearby vehicle and the turn radius capability of the host vehicle. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to include the above considerations in order to determine a path that avoids collision (Michalakis [0048] “The determined path can be a path that avoids a collision with the surrounding vehicle 100.”).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu in view of Zuo and Michalakis as applied to claims 8 and 18 above, and further in view of Connell et al. (US 11420652 B2), hereinafter referred to as Connell.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Hiramatsu fails to disclose The autonomous driving control apparatus of claim 8, wherein the collision determination condition is defined such that an optimization path does not deviate from a boundary of the optimization path.
However, Zuo teaches the collision determination condition is defined such that an optimization path does not deviate from a boundary of the optimization path ([0048] “the reference path is modified further in consideration of the deviation from a central line of a road, so as to avoid excessive deviation from the central line of the road.” [FIG. 10]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiramatsu with Zuo‘s teaching of modifying the reference path for the target trajectory while including consideration of objects on the road as well as the amount of deviation from the road. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to include the consideration of the deviation in order to avoid deviation from the target trajectory, which is important for safety (Zuo [0031] “the controller needs to be accurate so that the result avoid deviation from the target trajectory, which is important for safety.”).
Hiramatsu fails to disclose the curvature limit condition is defined such that a curvature radius for each optimization path point is greater than a minimum turning radius of the vehicle.
However, Connell teaches the curvature limit condition is defined such that a curvature radius for each optimization path point is greater than a minimum turning radius of the vehicle ([column 6, lines 28-33] “way-points are then sequentially passed into a curve check test which computes the turning radius required for the points. If the turning radius is smaller than the minimum turning radius of the machine the points are passed to a Dubins smooth path generator that returns the navigable way-points”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiramatsu with Connell‘s teaching of determining if the waypoints for the trajectory would result in a turn radius less than the machine’s minimum turn radius and if so, passing them through a smooth path generator to return navigable points. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to include the above path planning consideration in order to ensure the vehicle can execute the path (Connell [column 9 lines 15-16] “ensure that the resultant path is smooth and executable by the vehicle 11.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose, teach, nor reasonably suggest the following limitations as a whole, recited by claim 10 which will be used as a representative claim for claim 20:
“wherein the path after the control target point is modified based on the control target point on an initial driving path of the vehicle and a path end point, the path end point being a first point within an entry target lane, wherein
the path end point is changed to a second point within the entry target lane based on a determination that a straight line connecting the control target point and the path end point does not intersect a boundary of the drivable area, and wherein
the second point is spaced from the first point by a predefined distance.”
The closest prior art of record is the following:
Hiramatsu et al. (US 20220089185 A1) discloses an ego vehicle traversing an intersection, detecting a static vehicle in the intended lane at the exit of the intersection, modifying the ego vehicle trajectory to avoid collision with the static vehicle. Hiramatsu does not disclose an first end path point being changed to a second point and is spaced from the first point by a predefined distance and remains in the same lane as the first point.
Nakanishi et al. (US 11338803 B2) teaches an original goal point X2 and an initial control target point X1. The trajectory points are created to avoid interference with the medians in the road. X"3 in FIG 10 would be the "interference avoidance point" which is spaced from X2 by distance D3. However, Nakanishi does not teach using lines to determine intersections with drivable areas using X2, X"3 or other points connected to X1 or to any other initial point.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Angelina M Shudy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights