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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are currently pending. Claims 6-9 and 17-20 are withdrawn. The previous 35 USC 112 rejection is overcome by Applicant’s amendments and comments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant's argument that the prior art of record fails to teach the newly amended limitations of independent claim 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the subject matter as disclosed in ¶0088-0090 regarding smoothing functions is distinct from the instant claim language. However, the Examiner notes that Mahabadi teaches the newly amended claim limitations with respect to Fig. 7 and ¶0076-0086. Fig. 7 clearly shows a second driving path (702) derived from a curve generated based on a plurality of points offset from reference trajectory 552 (see ¶0073-0086). Mahabadi’s later teachings of curve smoothing are not relied upon for the teaching of the newly added claim limitations.
Therefore, the prior art of record meets the claim limitations, and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahabadi et al. (US 2018/0356819).
Regarding claim 1:
Mahabadi teaches a vehicle comprising:
a communication interface (multiple communications interfaces between controllers and modules interior and exterior to vehicle, see at least ¶0046-0048);
a vehicle control device (trajectory control system 300); and
a controller (controller 134), wherein the controller is configured to:
transmit, to a device via the communication interface, first information indicating a first autonomous driving path of the vehicle (reference trajectory 552, see at least Fig. 5-8, ¶0072-0075);
receive, based on an external object causing an adjustment of the first autonomous driving path while the vehicle is driving along the first autonomous driving path, second information indicating a second autonomous driving path, wherein the second autonomous driving path is adjusted based on the first autonomous driving path (see at least Figs. 5-8, Obstacle vehicles 504, 506, ¶0070-0076); and
based on a determination of whether the second autonomous driving path is feasible for an autonomous driving adjustment of the vehicle (optimal path 702 determined infeasible or infeasible, see at least ¶0093-0132, Fig. 11):
perform, by the vehicle control device, the autonomous driving adjustment of the vehicle (path 702 is followed if not determined infeasible, see at least ¶0132); or
transmit, to the device, information indicating that the second autonomous driving path is infeasible for the vehicle (optional limitation, not required for the claim combination).
wherein the second autonomous driving path is generated based on at least one curve, wherein each of the at least one curve passed through three changed points, and
wherein each of the three changed points is obtained by changing locations of a point included in the first autonomous driving path (see at least Fig. 7, plurality of points in curve/path 702 generated from offset points of reference path 552, ¶0073-0086).
Regarding claim 11:
Mahabadi further teaches wherein the first information comprises information of the vehicle comprising at least one of: a specification of the vehicle, or motion characteristic information of the vehicle, and wherein the first information comprises information related to driving of the vehicle comprising at least one of: a surrounding environment of the vehicle, a location of the vehicle, a speed of the vehicle, the first autonomous driving path, a first plurality of points included in the first autonomous driving path, or a signal indicating that the vehicle is not able to be operated along the first autonomous driving path (see at least ¶0043, ¶0092-0095, ¶0125).
Regarding claim 12, Mahabadi teaches a method of performing an autonomous driving adjustment as in claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 10, 14 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahabadi et al. (US 2018/0356819).
Regarding claims 3 and 14:
Mahabadi further teaches wherein the controller is configured to:
identify, among a plurality of changed points included in the second autonomous driving path, a first changed point where the vehicle is to be operated, a second changed point where the vehicle is to be operated after the first changed point, and a third changed point where the vehicle is to be operated after the second changed point, (see at least Fig. 7, ¶0076-0086); and
determine whether the vehicle is able to be operated along the second autonomous driving path based on at least one of: the radius of curvature, or motion characteristic information of the vehicle (see at least ¶0124-0127, ¶0160).
Mahabadi further teaches determining a curvature based on at least one of: the first changed point, the second changed point, or the third changed point (see at least ¶0088-0090).
Mahabadi does not explicitly teach identifying a radius of curvature.
However, the Examiner notes that identifying a curvature is a known equivalent of identifying a radius of curvature with a well-defined mathematical inverse relationship.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the vehicle control system and method as taught by Mahabadi with well-known mathematical equivalent measure of a common stability criteria/constraint as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 10:
Mahabadi further teaches wherein at least one of the vehicle control device or the controller is configured to:
transmit, to the device, a driving disturbance signal indicating that the vehicle is not able to be operated along the second autonomous driving path, and receive, based on the driving disturbance signal, a third autonomous driving path obtained by changing locations of the plurality of changed points included in the second autonomous driving path (see at least Fig. 13, S1370, 1375, ¶0160, short range submodule, resulting path submodule, critical control module, see at least ¶0129-130, the Examiner notes that, broadly interpreted, determining that the optimized trajectory does not meet the constraint conditions, and calling on the critical control submodule 470 meets the claim limitation of the “driving disturbance signal”).
Regarding claims 21-22:
Mahabadi further teaches wherein the first autonomous driving path comprises a first curved path segment, and wherein the first curved path segment comprises the points included in the first autonomous driving path from which the three changed points are obtained (broadly interpreted, the path 552 meets the claim limitation, since it depicts a path with a curve of zero, see at least Figs. 7-8).
Alternately or in addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Fig. 7 represents a simple exemplary reference path of an autonomous vehicle, and that in real-world examples, reference paths would routinely comprise paths that are not straight lines, at least when the road itself is not straight.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention that the autonomous driving path generation system and method as taught by Mahabadi would function in a similar manner with a non-zero curved reference path, utilizing the same algorithm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahabadi as applied to claims 1-3 and 12-14 above, in view of Fregene et al. (US 2009/0319112).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 15-16:
Mahabadi teaches the limitations as in claim 3 and 14 above.
Mahabadi further teaches generating a third autonomous driving path by changing locations of the plurality of changed points based on the radius of curvature being outside the constraint conditions (see at least ¶0131-0157).
Mahabadi does not explicitly teach the constraint condition being a minimum turning radius of the vehicle.
Fregene teaches a system and method of automatic trajectory planning for an autonomous vehicle, including setting a constraint condition for a vehicle path including a minimum turning radius of the vehicle (see at least abstract, ¶0015, ¶0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the system and method of path planning for a vehicle as taught by Mahabadi with the well-known constraint condition of a minimum turning radius of a vehicle as taught by Fregene in order to generate trajectories that are within a control envelope of the vehicle, and ensuring that any trajectory is not outside the vehicle’s capabilities.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ryan Rink/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619