DETAILED ACTION
NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 9/24/2025. Applicant amended claims 1-2, 5, 15, 17 and 20; and canceled claims 3-4. Claims 1-2 and 5-20 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim rejections under §§ 102 and 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 9/24/2025 have been fully considered.
As to amended claim 1, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As to claim 7, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose the recitation of “wherein the utility function penalizes reverse motion of the ego vehicle.” Namely, Applicant argues that Nister’s cost function including a penalty for “changing from forward to reverse or back” does not analogize to penalizing for reverse motion of the vehicle, as Applicant argues that the penalization ceases once the vehicle has changed from forward to reverse.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited prior art discloses the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “wherein the utility function penalizes reverse motion of the ego vehicle.” As Applicant pointed out, Nister’s utility function comprises “a penalty for changing from forward to reverse or back.” (See Nister, ¶ 75.) However, Examiner respectfully submits that the foregoing penalty does indeed penalize reverse motion of the vehicle. That is, a changing of a vehicle’s motion from forward to reverse or back would necessarily entail that reverse motion is carried out, even if that reverse motion is merely to cancel out current forward motion. Nister’s penalty achieves the same desired effect of discouraging reverse motion as contemplated by Applicant’s specification. (See Application PGPUB ¶ 45.) Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Nister as disclosing a utility function which penalizes reverse motion of the ego vehicle
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 103 are maintained.
IDS
Certain entries of the IDS filed on 8/13/2025 have not been considered for the following reasons:
Entry 4 “US20220306512A1” appears to be a typo of “US20220306122A1”.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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, 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Buburuzan et al. (US20170345308A1; “Buburuzan”). in view of Yu et al. (US20220153296A1; “Yu”).
As to claim 1, Buburuzan discloses: a computer comprising a processor and a memory (“The first vehicle 10 has a computation unit 12” ¶ 34. “vehicle-internal memory” - ¶ 16.), the memory storing instructions executable by the processor to:
receive a transmission including non-ego projected control inputs for at least one non-ego vehicle, the transmission originating from the at least one non-ego vehicle, the non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps starting at a next timestep after a current timestep (A vehicle may comprise a “a communication device that is set up to receive maneuver information of other vehicles.” See at least ¶ 30. Indeed, “The maneuver information pertaining to the driving maneuver of the second vehicle can comprise multiple position data, the multiple position data each having an associated time value.” See at least ¶ 26. Examiner Note: A time value associated with position data pertaining to maneuver information meets the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a future timestep because the time value represents a timestep at which a non-ego vehicle will be in a certain position in accordance with a performed projected maneuver, which is necessarily representative of non-ego projected control inputs.);
inherit prior ego projected control inputs for an ego vehicle, the ego vehicle including the computer, the prior ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps starting at the current timestep (“The driving maneuver to be carried out is determined by means of the definition of multiple position data, the position data each having an associated time value …. The computation unit 12 of the first vehicle 10 is set up to stipulate a maneuver trajectory for the driving maneuver to be carried out on the basis of the maneuver information received from the second vehicle 16.” See at least ¶ 35. See above Examiner Note explaining how an associated time value meets the BRI of a timestep.);
actuate the ego vehicle according to the prior ego projected control input paired with the current timestep (The disclosed method concludes with “Performance of the driving maneuver by the first vehicle 10 using the stipulated maneuver trajectory” - ¶ 65 and FIG. 2.); and
determine current ego projected control inputs for an ego vehicle based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps starting at the next timestep (“The driving maneuver to be carried out is determined by means of the definition of multiple position data, the position data each having an associated time value …. The computation unit 12 of the first vehicle 10 is set up to stipulate a maneuver trajectory for the driving maneuver to be carried out on the basis of the maneuver information received from the second vehicle 16.” See at least ¶ 35. See above Examiner Note explaining how an associated time value meets the BRI of a timestep. Further note: The foregoing discloses that a vehicle performs an associated action with the planned maneuver at each associated time value (timestep). Hence, the control system sets out both prior and current vehicle actions associated with the planned maneuver, which as it is carried out will entail prior and current vehicle actions.); and
actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with the next timestep (The disclosed method concludes with “Performance of the driving maneuver by the first vehicle 10 using the stipulated maneuver trajectory” - ¶ 65 and FIG. 2. Note: The foregoing discloses that a vehicle performs an associated action with the planned maneuver at each associated time value (timestep). Hence, the control system sets out both prior and current vehicle actions associated with the planned maneuver, which as it is carried out will entail prior and current vehicle actions.).
Buburuzan fails to explicitly disclose:
repeatedly at each of a plurality of timesteps starting at a current timestep, perform an iteration including the claimed steps; and
upon actuating the ego vehicle according to the prior ego projected control input for the current timestep:
replace the prior ego projected control inputs for the future timesteps starting at the next timestep with the current ego projected control inputs starting at the next timestep, before actuating the ego vehicle at the next timestep;
wherein the current ego projected control inputs become the prior ego projected control inputs in a next iteration immediately after the iteration.
Nevertheless, Yu teaches:
repeatedly at each of a plurality of timesteps starting at a current timestep, perform an iteration of calculating ego control inputs (“Planning module 305 plans a route segment or path segment for the next predetermined period of time such as 5 seconds. For each planning cycle, planning module 305 plans a target position for the current cycle (e.g., next 5 seconds) based on a target position planned in a previous cycle. Control module 306 then generates one or more control commands (e.g., throttle, brake, steering control commands) based on the planning and control data of the current cycle.” ¶ 52.)
upon actuating the ego vehicle according to the prior ego projected control input for the current timestep:
replace the prior ego projected control inputs for the future timesteps starting at the next timestep with the current ego projected control inputs starting at the next timestep, before actuating the ego vehicle at the next timestep (“Referring to FIG. 10, a first trajectory 908 may be planned for the ADV 810 to drive along …. The ADV 810 may follow the generated trajectory 908 to move to the end point Pe 904. During the route, the ADV 810 may detect the obstacle 807 in an affected region 1001 of the ADV 810 based on sensor data obtained from a plurality of sensors mounted on the ADV.” ¶ 84 and FIG. 10. “If the ratio R is greater than a predetermined threshold, such as, for example, R>1, (e.g., the second estimated time of arrival T2 is shorter than the first estimated time of arrival T1) determination module 604 may determine to re-plan and return to operations 1-7. Determination module 604 may be configured to plan the second trajectory 1002 for the ADV 810 to drive along and controlling the ADV 810 to autonomously drive along the second trajectory 1002.” ¶ 94. See also ¶ 99 and FIGS. 10 and 14. Note: The foregoing processes are performed while an ego vehicle is traveling along a route (first trajectory), so necessarily the processes are performed upon actuating the ego vehicle according to the prior ego projected control input for the current timestep. Then during the current time step, it may be determined whether to replace prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs starting at the next timestep, before actuating the ego vehicle at the next timestep to travel along a second trajectory, with control inputs associated with the second trajectory overriding those associated with the first trajectory.);
wherein the current ego projected control inputs become the prior ego projected control inputs in a next iteration immediately after the iteration (See at least ¶¶ 94, 99 and FIGS. 10 and 14. Note: By the iterative nature of Yu, the current ego projected control inputs necessarily become the prior ego projected control inputs in a next cycle (iteration) as required for the successful operation of Yu’s invention.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Buburuzan to include the above features as taught by Yu, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for improving upon conventional free space path planning methods which are “slow to generate a trajectory in real-time, and may lead to a poor performance in obstacle avoidance.” (Yu, ¶ 3.) Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the incorporation of Yu’s teaching into Buburuzan would result in an improved control scheme that can account for another vehicle in an intersection and subsequently generate a new cooperative trajectory and replace a current, previously-determined trajectory; such improves the probability of success of the desired goal of Buburuzan (i.e., cooperative driving between two vehicles) in a predictable manner.
Claims 2 and 20 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Buburuzan in view of Yu as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Bouillon et al. (US20200410868A1; “Bouillon”).
As to claim 2, the combination of Buburuzan and Yu fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the instructions further include instructions to transmit the ego projected control inputs to a server remote from the ego vehicle.
Nevertheless, Bouillon teaches: transmitting ego projected control inputs to a server remote from the ego vehicle (“The vehicle V1 transmits event information, corresponding to a braking message Mf, to a management entity of an operator network, or service platform.” ¶ 73 and FIG. 2.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep. Bouillon teaches: transmitting ego projected control inputs to a server remote from the ego 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 the combination of Buburuzan and Yu to include the feature of: transmitting ego projected control inputs to a server remote from the ego vehicle, as taught by Bouillon, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “coordination of vehicles moving in convoys.” (Bouillon, ¶ 1.)
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Buburuzan in view of Yu as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Salehi et al. (US20240140449A1; “Salehi”)
As to claim 5, the combination of Buburuzan and Yu fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the instructions further include instructions to determine the ego projected control inputs by maximizing a utility function over the future timesteps.
Nevertheless, Salehi teaches: determine the ego projected control inputs by maximizing a utility function over future timesteps (In an “execute adjustment module 216” step, which is service of providing an “adjusted set of parameters … used to update the vehicle planning module 120 and generate a modified vehicle trajectory,” a parameter adjustment module 150 “may maximize a utility function G in an iterative process.” See at least ¶¶ 37–39 and FIG. 3.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep. Salehi teaches: determine the ego projected control inputs by maximizing a utility function over future timesteps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Buburuzan and Yu to include the feature of: determine the ego projected control inputs by maximizing a utility function over future timesteps, as taught by Salehi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for determining a feasible path for a vehicle constrained by a set of planning parameters (See Salehi, ¶¶ 2 and 3.)
As to claim 13, Buburuzan fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the instructions further include instructions to determine a value of the utility function based on projected states of the ego vehicle and the at least one non-ego vehicle at the future timesteps.
Nevertheless, Salahi teaches: instructions to determine a value of the utility function based on projected states of the ego vehicle and the at least one non-ego vehicle at the future timesteps (In an “execute adjustment module 216” step, which is service of providing an “adjusted set of parameters … used to update the vehicle planning module 120 and generate a modified vehicle trajectory,” a parameter adjustment module 150 “may maximize a utility function G in an iterative process.” See at least ¶¶ 37–39 and FIG. 3. Examiner Note: Maximizing a utility function meets the BRI of determining a value of a utility function because said maximizing by definition yields (determines) a maximized value of the utility function.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep. Salehi teaches: determine the ego projected control inputs by maximizing a utility function over future timesteps; and determining a value of the utility function based on projected states of the ego vehicle and the at least one non-ego vehicle at the future timesteps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Buburuzan and Yu to include the feature of: instructions to determine a value of the utility function based on projected states of the ego vehicle and the at least one non-ego vehicle at the future timesteps, as taught by Salehi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for determining a feasible path for a vehicle constrained by a set of planning parameters (See Salehi, ¶¶ 2 and 3.)
Claim 6 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Buburuzan in view of Yu and in view of Salehi as applied to claim 5 — further in view of Hada (US20120059574A1; “Hada”) and in view of Dai et al. (US20220063651A1; “Dai”).
As to claim 6, the combination of Buburuzan, Yu and Salehi fails to explicitly disclose: the instructions further include instructions to receive a second transmission including an optimal speed, the transmission originating outside the ego vehicle.
Nevertheless, Hada teaches: receive a transmission including an optimal speed, the transmission originating outside the ego vehicle (“The optimal travel speeds can then be communicated to the vehicle 10 by transmission from the roadside unit 14 (or other roadside unit) to the vehicle unit 12.” ¶ 19 and FIG. 1A.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep. Salehi teaches: determine the ego projected control inputs by maximizing a utility function over future timesteps. Hada teaches: receive a transmission including an optimal speed, the transmission originating outside the ego 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 the combination of Buburuzan and Salehi with the feature of: receive a transmission including an optimal speed, the transmission originating outside the ego vehicle, as taught by Hada, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for determining “a vehicle speed that improves traffic flow.” (Hada, ¶ 1.)
The combination of Buburuzan, Yu, Salehi and Hada fails to explicitly disclose: the utility function rewards forward motion of the ego vehicle up to the optimal speed.
Nevertheless, Dai teaches: a utility function rewards forward motion of an ego vehicle up to an optimal speed (“The utility functions can include one or more of moving forward at a desired speed” ¶ 13.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep. Salehi teaches: determine the ego projected control inputs by maximizing a utility function over future timesteps. Hada teaches: receive a transmission including an optimal speed, the transmission originating outside the ego vehicle. Dai teaches: a utility function rewards forward motion of an ego vehicle up to an optimal 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 the combination of Buburuzan, Yu, Salehi and Hada with the feature of: a utility function rewards forward motion of an ego vehicle up to an optimal speed, as taught by Dai, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for improving “the accuracy of prediction of motions of the agents.” (Dai, ¶ 11.)
Claim 7 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Buburuzan in view of Yu and in view of Salehi as applied to claim 5 — further in view of Nister et al. (US20220404829A1; “Nister”).
As to claim 7, the combination of Buburuzan, Yu and Salehi fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the utility function penalizes reverse motion of the ego vehicle.
Nevertheless, Nister teaches: wherein a utility function penalizes reverse motion of the ego vehicle (“The trajectory assessor 150 may apply a cost function modeling the amount of time taken to traverse a trajectory, which may include a penalty for changing from forward to reverse or back.” See at least ¶ 75.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep. Salehi teaches: determine the ego projected control inputs by maximizing a utility function over future timesteps. Nister teaches: wherein a utility function penalizes reverse motion of the ego 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 the combination of Buburuzan, Yu and Salehi with the feature of: wherein a utility function penalizes reverse motion of the ego vehicle, as taught by Nister, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “determine a path of a vehicle through a pose configuration space in a highly parallelized manner” (Nister, ¶ 3.)
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Buburuzan in view of Yu and in view of Salehi as applied to claim 5 — further in view of Dai.
As to claim 8, the combination of Buburuzan, Yu and Salehi fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the utility function penalizes proximity of the ego vehicle to the at least one non-ego vehicle.
Nevertheless, Dai teaches: wherein a utility function penalizes proximity of the ego vehicle to the at least one non-ego vehicle (A utility function may incorporate “[a] collision penalty … between an agent i and another moving agent j.” ¶ 49.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep. Salehi teaches: determine the ego projected control inputs by maximizing a utility function over future timesteps. Dai teaches: wherein a utility function penalizes proximity of the ego vehicle to the at least one non-ego 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 the combination of Buburuzan, Yu and Salehi with the feature of: wherein a utility function penalizes proximity of the ego vehicle to the at least one non-ego vehicle, as taught by Dai, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for improving “the accuracy of prediction of motions of the agents.” (Dai, ¶ 11.)
As to claim 10, the combination of Buburuzan, Yu and Salehi fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the instructions further include instructions to maximize the utility function by performing a grid search over possible ego projected control inputs.
Nevertheless, Dai teaches: instructions to maximize the utility function by performing a grid search over possible ego projected control inputs (“The approximate Nash equilibrium solution can perform an adaptive grid search optimization technique to determine the optimal vehicle actions based on estimating the possible future states of the multiple agents, wherein … possible future states are estimated by simulating behavior of the multiple agents based on the utility functions to determine the possible future states for the multiple agents.” ¶ 13.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep. Salehi teaches: determine the ego projected control inputs by maximizing a utility function over future timesteps. Dai teaches: instructions to maximize the utility function by performing a grid search over possible ego projected control inputs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Buburuzan, Yu and Salehi with the feature of: instructions to maximize the utility function by performing a grid search over possible ego projected control inputs, as taught by Dai, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for improving “the accuracy of prediction of motions of the agents.” (Dai, ¶ 11.)
Claim 9 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Buburuzan in view of Yu, in view of Salehi and in view of Dai as applied to claim 8 — further in view of Borhan et al. (US20230386343A1; “Borhan”).
As to claim 9, the combination of Buburuzan, Yu, Salehi and Dai fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the at least one non-ego vehicle includes a single non-ego vehicle traveling immediately forward from the ego vehicle.
Nevertheless, Borhan teaches: wherein at least one non-ego vehicle includes a single non-ego vehicle traveling immediately forward from the ego vehicle (A platoon of vehicle is disclosed wherein “each of vehicles 101 is in bi-directional communication with its respective immediately forward vehicle.” ¶ 23 and FIG. 1.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep. Salehi teaches: determine the ego projected control inputs by maximizing a utility function over future timesteps. Dai teaches: wherein a utility function penalizes proximity of the ego vehicle to the at least one non-ego vehicle. Borhan teaches: wherein at least one non-ego vehicle includes a single non-ego vehicle traveling immediately forward from the ego 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 the combination of Buburuzan, Yu, Salehi and Dai with the feature of: wherein at least one non-ego vehicle includes a single non-ego vehicle traveling immediately forward from the ego vehicle, as taught by Borhan, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known and ordinary in the art to perform vehicle control of an ego vehicle in relation to a preceding forward non-ego vehicle as such is a common scenario for vehicles on public roadways.
Claim 11 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Buburuzan in view of Yu and in view of Salehi as applied to claim 5 — further in view of Kobilarov et al. (US20240092357A1; “Kobilarov”).
As to claim 11, the combination of Buburuzan, Yu and Salehi fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the instructions further include instructions to maximize the utility function by parameterizing possible ego projected control inputs to a smaller number of variables than the number of ego projected control inputs.
Nevertheless, Kobilarov teaches: maximizing a utility function by parameterizing possible ego projected control inputs to a smaller number of variables than the number of ego projected control inputs (“A planning component associated with an autonomous vehicle may perform trajectory optimization by perturbing and vectorizing trajectories into sets of variables representing different vehicle state parameters at different points/times in the trajectory …. For each segment, the planning component may parameterize the segment into one or multiple vehicle state parameters.” ¶ 19.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep. Salehi teaches: determine the ego projected control inputs by maximizing a utility function over future timesteps. Salehi teaches: determine the ego projected control inputs by maximizing a utility function over future timesteps. Kobilarov teaches: maximizing a utility function by parameterizing possible ego projected control inputs to a smaller number of variables than the number of ego projected control inputs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Buburuzan, Yu and Salehi with the feature of: maximizing a utility function by parameterizing possible ego projected control inputs to a smaller number of variables than the number of ego projected control inputs, as taught by Kobilarov, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for determining “an optimal (e.g., lowest-cost) control trajectory from the various perturbed trajectories, which may be selected to control the vehicle in the driving environment.” (Kobilarov, ¶ 11.)
Claim 12 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Buburuzan in view of Yu and in view of Salehi and in view of Kobilarov as applied to claim 11 — further in view of Floyd-Jones et al. (US20200377085A1; “Floyd”).
As to claim 12, the combination of Buburuzan, Yu, Salehi and Kobilarov fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the instructions further include instructions to parameterize the possible ego projected control inputs by curve-fitting.
Nevertheless, Floyd teaches: parameterize possible ego projected control inputs by curve-fitting (“A trajectory of a primary agent and/or dynamic obstacle may advantageously be represented by respective sets of fitted functions (e.g., fitted polynomial functions)” ¶ 5.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep. Salehi teaches: determine the ego projected control inputs by maximizing a utility function over future timesteps. Kobilarov teaches: maximizing a utility function by parameterizing possible ego projected control inputs to a smaller number of variables than the number of ego projected control inputs. Floyd teaches: parameterize possible ego projected control inputs by curve-fitting.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Buburuzan, Yu, Salehi and Kobilarov with the feature of: parameterize possible ego projected control inputs by curve-fitting, as taught by Floyd, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for performing “motion planning to keep up with changes in the operational environment in real time to avoid collision with both dynamic and static obstacles to achieve the goal state.” (Floyd, ¶ 3.)
Claim 14 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Buburuzan in view of Yu and in view of Dai.
As to claim 14, Buburuzan discloses: wherein non-ego projected control inputs specify acceleration of the non-ego vehicle (“The maneuver information pertaining to the driving maneuver of the second vehicle can comprise … acceleration data.” ¶ 28.).
The combination Buburuzan and Yu fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the ego projected control inputs specify acceleration of the ego vehicle.
Nevertheless, Dai teaches: wherein the ego projected control inputs specify acceleration of the ego vehicle (“The computing device 115 may include programming to regulate vehicle 110 operational behaviors (i.e., physical manifestations of vehicle 110 operation) such as acceleration.” See at least ¶ 21.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep, wherein non-ego projected control inputs specify acceleration of the non-ego vehicle. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep. Dai teaches: wherein the ego projected control inputs specify acceleration of the ego 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 the combination of Buburuzan and Yu with the feature of: wherein the ego projected control inputs specify acceleration of the ego vehicle, as taught by Dai, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the vehicle control art that an ego vehicle may calculate ego acceleration in response to outside factors (e.g., projected non-ego vehicle control inputs).
Claim 15 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Buburuzan in view of Yu and in view of Kato et al. (US20190221125A1; “Kato”).
As to independent claim 15, Buburuzan discloses:
a plurality of vehicles communicatively coupled with each other (“two= vehicles 10, 16” – see at least ¶¶ 33–34 and FIG. 1.), wherein each vehicle includes a vehicle computer (“computation unit 12” – see at least ¶ 34.) programmed to:
receive a transmission including non-ego projected control inputs for at least one non-ego vehicle, the transmission originating from the at least one non-ego vehicle, the non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps starting at a next timestep after a current time (A vehicle may comprise a “a communication device that is set up to receive maneuver information of other vehicles.” See at least ¶ 30. Indeed, “The maneuver information pertaining to the driving maneuver of the second vehicle can comprise multiple position data, the multiple position data each having an associated time value.” See at least ¶ 26. Examiner Note: A time value associated with position data pertaining to maneuver information meets the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a future timestep because the time value represents a timestep at which a non-ego vehicle will be in a certain position in accordance with a performed projected maneuver, which is necessarily representative of non-ego projected control inputs.);
inherit prior ego projected control inputs for an ego vehicle, the ego vehicle including the computer, the prior ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps starting at the current timestep (“The driving maneuver to be carried out is determined by means of the definition of multiple position data, the position data each having an associated time value …. The computation unit 12 of the first vehicle 10 is set up to stipulate a maneuver trajectory for the driving maneuver to be carried out on the basis of the maneuver information received from the second vehicle 16.” See at least ¶ 35. See above Examiner Note explaining how an associated time value meets the BRI of a timestep.);
actuate the ego vehicle according to the prior ego projected control input paired with the current timestep (The disclosed method concludes with “Performance of the driving maneuver by the first vehicle 10 using the stipulated maneuver trajectory” - ¶ 65 and FIG. 2.); and
determine current ego projected control inputs for an ego vehicle based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps starting at the next timestep (“The driving maneuver to be carried out is determined by means of the definition of multiple position data, the position data each having an associated time value …. The computation unit 12 of the first vehicle 10 is set up to stipulate a maneuver trajectory for the driving maneuver to be carried out on the basis of the maneuver information received from the second vehicle 16.” See at least ¶ 35. See above Examiner Note explaining how an associated time value meets the BRI of a timestep. Further note: The foregoing discloses that a vehicle performs an associated action with the planned maneuver at each associated time value (timestep). Hence, the control system sets out both prior and current vehicle actions associated with the planned maneuver, which as it is carried out will entail prior and current vehicle actions.); and
actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with the next timestep (The disclosed method concludes with “Performance of the driving maneuver by the first vehicle 10 using the stipulated maneuver trajectory” - ¶ 65 and FIG. 2. Note: The foregoing discloses that a vehicle performs an associated action with the planned maneuver at each associated time value (timestep). Hence, the control system sets out both prior and current vehicle actions associated with the planned maneuver, which as it is carried out will entail prior and current vehicle actions.).
Buburuzan fails to explicitly disclose:
repeatedly at each of a plurality of timesteps starting at a current timestep, perform an iteration including the claimed steps; and
upon actuating the ego vehicle according to the prior ego projected control input for the current timestep:
replace the prior ego projected control inputs for the future timesteps starting at the next timestep with the current ego projected control inputs starting at the next timestep, before actuating the ego vehicle at the next timestep;
wherein the current ego projected control inputs become the prior ego projected control inputs in a next iteration immediately after the iteration.
Nevertheless, Yu teaches:
repeatedly at each of a plurality of timesteps starting at a current timestep, perform an iteration of calculating ego control inputs (“Planning module 305 plans a route segment or path segment for the next predetermined period of time such as 5 seconds. For each planning cycle, planning module 305 plans a target position for the current cycle (e.g., next 5 seconds) based on a target position planned in a previous cycle. Control module 306 then generates one or more control commands (e.g., throttle, brake, steering control commands) based on the planning and control data of the current cycle.” ¶ 52.)
upon actuating the ego vehicle according to the prior ego projected control input for the current timestep:
replace the prior ego projected control inputs for the future timesteps starting at the next timestep with the current ego projected control inputs starting at the next timestep, before actuating the ego vehicle at the next timestep (“Referring to FIG. 10, a first trajectory 908 may be planned for the ADV 810 to drive along …. The ADV 810 may follow the generated trajectory 908 to move to the end point Pe 904. During the route, the ADV 810 may detect the obstacle 807 in an affected region 1001 of the ADV 810 based on sensor data obtained from a plurality of sensors mounted on the ADV.” ¶ 84 and FIG. 10. “If the ratio R is greater than a predetermined threshold, such as, for example, R>1, (e.g., the second estimated time of arrival T2 is shorter than the first estimated time of arrival T1) determination module 604 may determine to re-plan and return to operations 1-7. Determination module 604 may be configured to plan the second trajectory 1002 for the ADV 810 to drive along and controlling the ADV 810 to autonomously drive along the second trajectory 1002.” ¶ 94. See also ¶ 99 and FIGS. 10 and 14. Note: The foregoing processes are performed while an ego vehicle is traveling along a route (first trajectory), so necessarily the processes are performed upon actuating the ego vehicle according to the prior ego projected control input for the current timestep. Then during the current time step, it may be determined whether to replace prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs starting at the next timestep, before actuating the ego vehicle at the next timestep to travel along a second trajectory, with control inputs associated with the second trajectory overriding those associated with the first trajectory.);
wherein the current ego projected control inputs become the prior ego projected control inputs in a next iteration immediately after the iteration (See at least ¶¶ 94, 99 and FIGS. 10 and 14. Note: By the iterative nature of Yu, the current ego projected control inputs necessarily become the prior ego projected control inputs in a next cycle (iteration) as required for the successful operation of Yu’s invention.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Buburuzan to include the above features as taught by Yu, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for improving upon conventional free space path planning methods which are “slow to generate a trajectory in real-time, and may lead to a poor performance in obstacle avoidance.” (Yu, ¶ 3.) Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the incorporation of Yu’s teaching into Buburuzan would result in an improved control scheme that can account for another vehicle in an intersection and subsequently generate a new cooperative trajectory and replace a current, previously-determined trajectory; such improves the probability of success of the desired goal of Buburuzan (i.e., cooperative driving between two vehicles) in a predictable manner.
The combination of Buburuzan and Yu fails to explicitly disclose: transmit the ego projected control inputs to at least one of the other vehicles.
Nevertheless, Kato teaches: transmit the ego projected control inputs to at least one of the other vehicles (A vehicle B creates “an action plan” and then “The transmission unit 31 of the vehicle B transmits to the vehicle A, a notification that the vehicle B can execute the collision avoidance action and the other-vehicle action plan.” See at least ¶¶59–60 and FIG. 4. ).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep. Kato teaches: transmit the ego projected control inputs to at least one of the other vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Buburuzan and Yu to include the feature of: transmit the ego projected control inputs to at least one of the other vehicles, as taught by Kato, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for modifying an action plan to an optimum “according to the response from the other vehicle.” (Kato, ¶ 11.)
Claim 16 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Buburuzan in view of Yu and in view of Kato as applied to claim 15 — further in view of Hada.
As to claim 16, the combination of Buburuzan, Yu and Kato fails to explicitly disclose:
a remote computer separate from the vehicles and communicatively coupled to the vehicles, the remote computer programmed to:
determine an optimal speed based on states of the vehicles; and
transmit the optimal speed to the vehicles.
Nevertheless, Hada teaches:
a remote computer separate from the vehicles and communicatively coupled to the vehicles (“traffic controller 18” – see at least ¶ 19 and FIG. 1A.), the remote computer programmed to:
determine an optimal speed based on states of the vehicles (“The traffic controller 18 may receive traffic data from a plurality of such roadside units. The traffic controller is able to determine optimum travel speeds at various points along the highway. The optimal travel speeds can then be communicated to the vehicle 10 by transmission from the roadside unit 14 (or other roadside unit) to the vehicle unit 12.” See at least ¶ 19 and FIG. 1A.); and
transmit the optimal speed to the vehicles (See at least ¶ 19 and FIG. 1A.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep. Kato teaches: transmit the ego projected control inputs to at least one of the other vehicles. Hada teaches: a remote computer which determines an optimal speed based on states of the vehicles and transmits said optimal speed to the vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Buburuzan and Kato to include the feature of: remote computer separate from the vehicles and communicatively coupled to the vehicles, the remote computer programmed to: determine an optimal speed based on states of the vehicles; and transmit the optimal speed to the vehicles, as taught by Hada, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for determining and then transmitting optimal speeds to vehicles, thereby enhancing vehicle control. (See Hada, ¶ 19.)
Claim 17 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Buburuzan in view of Yu, in view of Kato and in view of Hada as applied to claim 16 — further in view of Jun et al. (US20230041192A1; “Jun”)
As to claim 17, the combination of Buburuzan, Yu, Kato and Hada fails to explicitly disclose: wherein each vehicle computer is programmed to determine the ego projected control inputs based on the optimal speed.
Nevertheless, Jun teaches: wherein each vehicle computer is programmed to determine the ego projected control inputs based on the optimal speed (“An optimal speed profile calculated in the cloud server is received by a vehicle controller by means of over-the-air programming and control to follow the optimal speed profile as a target speed is performed.” ¶ 7.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep. Kato teaches: transmit the ego projected control inputs to at least one of the other vehicles. Hada teaches: a remote computer which determines an optimal speed based on states of the vehicles and transmits said optimal speed to the vehicles. Jun teaches: wherein each vehicle computer is programmed to determine the ego projected control inputs based on the optimal 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 the combination of Buburuzan, Yu, Kato and Hada to include the feature of: wherein each vehicle computer is programmed to determine the ego projected control inputs based on the optimal speed, as taught by Jun, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for controlling an ego vehicle to follow an optimal speed. (See Jun, ¶ 7).
Claim 18 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Buburuzan in view of Yu, in view of Kato and in view of Hada as applied to claim 16 — further in view of Van Laethem et al. (US20130317730A1; “Van Laethem”).
As to claim 18, the combination of Buburuzan, Yu, Kato and Hada fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the optimal speed is a target speed for the vehicles that maximizes an average speed of the vehicles.
Nevertheless, Van Laethem teaches: wherein the optimal speed is a target speed for the vehicles that maximizes an average speed of the vehicles (An “average maximum speed” may be determined. See at least Abstract.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep. Kato teaches: transmit the ego projected control inputs to at least one of the other vehicles. Hada teaches: a remote computer which determines an optimal speed based on states of the vehicles and transmits said optimal speed to the vehicles. Van Laethem teaches: wherein the optimal speed is a target speed for the vehicles that maximizes an average speed of the vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Buburuzan, Yu, Kato and Hada to include the feature of: wherein the optimal speed is a target speed for the vehicles that maximizes an average speed of the vehicles, as taught by Van Laethem, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for optimizing vehicle control in the context of a plurality of vehicles, thereby enhancing traffic flow and safety.
Claim 19 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Buburuzan in view of Yu, in view of Kato and in view of Hada as applied to claim 16 — further in view of Van Laethem and in view of Englerth et al. (US20100217519A1; “Englerth”).
As to claim 19, the combination of combination of Buburuzan, Yu, Kato, Hada and Van Laethem fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the optimal speed is a target speed for the vehicles that maximizes an average speed of the vehicles subject to constraining an average of amplitude oscillations of speeds of the vehicles within a preset limit.
Nevertheless, Englerth teaches: constraining an average of amplitude oscillations of speeds of the vehicles within a preset limit (“Measured user speeds that lie outside a predetermined extreme value interval being defined especially as a function of the road category are disregarded in the calculation of a new average speed.” See at least claim 6.).
Buburuzan discloses: receiving non-ego projected control inputs paired with respective future timesteps; determining ego projected control inputs based on the non-ego projected control inputs, the ego projected control inputs paired with the respective future timesteps; and actuate the ego vehicle according to the ego projected control input paired with a next timestep. Yu teaches: performing a repetitive iteration of determining ego control inputs, and replacing prior ego projected control inputs with current ego projected control inputs before actuating an ego vehicle at a next timestep. Kato teaches: transmit the ego projected control inputs to at least one of the other vehicles. Hada teaches: a remote computer which determines an optimal speed based on states of the vehicles and transmits said optimal speed to the vehicles. Van Laethem teaches: wherein the optimal speed is a target speed for the vehicles that maximizes an average speed of the vehicles. Englerth teaches: constraining an average of amplitude oscillations of speeds of the vehicles within a preset limit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Buburuzan, Yu, Kato, Hada and Van Laethem to include the feature of: constraining an average of amplitude oscillations of speeds of the vehicles within a preset limit, as taught by Englerth, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for attenuating “the effect of implausible or flawed measured values or the effect of outlier values.” (Englerth, ¶ 31.) Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention by applying Englerth’s constraining to Van Laethem’s calculation of a maximized average speed as such enhances Van Laethem’s calculation through the desired attenuation of flawed/outlier values. Such is useful for performing more accurate calculations and therefore yielding more optimal values.
CONCLUSION
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is final. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire three months from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within two months of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the three-month shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than six months from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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 S. Jabr, can be reached on (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.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights