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 1-6 and 8-10 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed10/29/2025 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 claim limitations regarding providing route information that is different from the position of the vehicle, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, the Examiner notes that McNaughton teaches implementing the configuration space path planner in an autonomous road vehicle, which at least implicitly requires some route planning for the vehicle, since autonomous road vehicles need route data a least in the form of destination and road information. Therefore the inclusion of some route information would have been at least obvious, if not inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention, in order to effectively operate an autonomous road vehicle as taught by McNaughton.
The Examiner notes that the Nister references discusses a plurality of data that meet the claim limitations. Firstly, Nister teaches that the autonomous vehicle comprises a navigation system (see at least ¶0205-0207).
Additionally, Nister further teaches at receiving a target trajectory and target pose of the vehicle, in other words, a destination on the route and/or a route for the vehicle to navigate (see at least ¶0028-0029, ¶0047).
Additionally, Nister teaches other vehicle route information, including at least the speed of the vehicle (see at least ¶0075-0076, ¶0113), traffic information (¶0193, ¶0209), map data (¶0113, ¶0121), etc. which broadly interpreted, meets the claim limitation of “route information... based on the current vehicle position... different from the current vehicle position”.
Therefore, the prior art of record meets the claim limitations, and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the alleged failure of the prior art of record to teach “predefined motion criteria that include at least one of a distance to a target, a distance to an object, a velocity to reach the target, or fastest way to a parking position”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, the Examiner notes that Nister teaches at least optimizing a cost function including time to traverse a trajectory to a parking position (see at least ¶0075).
Additionally, McNaughton clearly teaches, in at least chapter 4, determining a best path through a configuration space, taking at least proximity to an obstacle as a cost (see at least p. 98, 108).
Therefore, the prior art of record meets the claim limitations, and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNaughton (Parallel Algorithms for Real-time Motion Planning) in view of Nister et al. (US 2022/0404829).
Regarding claim 1:
McNaughton teaches a method for motion planning of an autonomous vehicle, performed by a motion planning system, the method comprising:
determining a plurality of configuration samples through a configuration space using a sampling-based algorithm (see at least 3.3 Path Model, 3.4 search graph),
wherein the configuration space represents surroundings of the vehicle (see at least 3.1, overview),
wherein the configuration samples are determined in predefined sampling steps (see at least 2.1.4-2.1.6, Fig 3.5),
wherein a sequence of the configuration samples defines a possible trajectory or path of the vehicle in the configuration space (see at least 3.1.4), and
wherein the configuration samples in each sampling step are determined in parallel by using at least one graphics processing unit of the motion planning system (see at least Abstract, 7.2.3);
calculating sequences of the configuration samples from the configuration samples by predefined motion criteria (see at least Chapter 4);
wherein the predefined motion criteria include at least one of a distance to a target, a distance to an object, a velocity to reach the target, or fastest way to a parking position (see at least p. 98, 108) and
outputting the sequences of the configuration samples as vehicle trajectories for moving the vehicle in the surroundings of the vehicle (see at least 5.1.8).
McNaughton further teaches receiving a current vehicle position, but is silent as to determining the position by a positioning sensor.
Nister teaches a system and method of parallel processing of vehicle path planning, including generating a path plan from a configuration space (see at least ¶0036-0038), receiving current vehicle position determined by a positioning sensor of the vehicle (see at least ¶0112), and receiving route information from a navigation system of the vehicle; and including the route information in the configuration space or in a calculation by the predefined motion criteria (see at least ¶0177).
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 generating a path for a vehicle in a road network as taught by McNaughton with the well-known technique of determining a route through a road network via a navigation system of a vehicle as taught by Nister in order to provide a route through a road network from a start point to a destination while generating paths on the roads.
Alternately or in addition, although McNaughton does not explicitly teach receiving route information different from the current vehicle position, the Examiner notes that McNaughton teaches implementing the configuration space path planner in an autonomous road vehicle, which at least implicitly requires some route planning for the vehicle, since autonomous road vehicles need route data at least in the form of destination and road information.
Therefore the inclusion of some route information (at least in the form of destination, road maps, routing information, traffic, etc.) would have been at least obvious, if not inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention, in order to effectively operate an autonomous road vehicle as taught by McNaughton.
Regarding claim 2:
McNaughton further teaches after each sampling step, clustering one or more of the sequences of the configuration samples with a same end state, wherein only one sequence of the one or more of the sequences of the configuration samples is processed further in the subsequent ones of the sampling steps (see at least 3.1.4, Fig. 3.6), and
wherein the one sequence of the one or more of the sequences of the configuration samples is selected by the predefined motion criteria (see at least 3.1.4, 3.4.3).
Regarding claim 3:
McNaughton further teaches rasterizing the configuration space based on environmental information of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 3.9, 2.12.1, 3.4.2); and
after each sampling step, rating each grid field of a plurality of grid fields of a rasterized configuration space according to an environmental criteria, wherein each of the configuration samples in a respective grid field receives a rating according to the environmental criteria (dynamic and static costs assigned to grid, see at least 4.4, 4.5).
Regarding claim 4:
McNaughton further teaches wherein the environmental criteria includes a Euclidian distance to a road limitation (see at least 3.2.1, road defined by center line, distance to center, lateral offset, cost function based on opposing lanes, see at least 4.4.1, ).
Regarding claim 5:
McNaughton further teaches after the vehicle trajectories are output, selecting a maneuver for the motion of the vehicle; and controlling the vehicle to perform the maneuver (see at least 5.1.10).
Regarding claim 6:
McNaughton further teaches receiving static or dynamic object information from a vehicle sensor; and including the static or dynamic object information in the configuration space or in a calculation by the predefined motion criteria (see at least 4,4, 4.5).
Regarding claim 8:
McNaughton further teaches wherein the calculating the sequences of the configuration samples with the predefined motion criteria includes optimizing a cost function (see at least 4.3, trajectory costs).
Regarding claims 9-10, McNaughton teaches a vehicle and a motion planning system performing the method as in claim 1 above.
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