DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on November 20, 2025. Claims 1, 22 and 23 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1 – 23 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 23 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
While the claim(s) involve(s) data processing, it/they is/are directed to a specific technical improvement in the operation of a physical system (an autonomous vehicle) rather than a mere "mental process" or "mathematical algorithm."
Integration into a Practical Application: Claim 22, as representative of claims 1 and 23, for instance, describe a specific architecture for a vehicle's trajectory planning system. It doesn't just calculate numbers; it uses real-time sensor data to manage the physical movement of a vehicle. Under USPTO Step 2A, Prong Two, a claim that improves a "technological process" or "machine" is generally held to be patent-eligible.
Technical Solution to a Technical Problem: The "parallel operation" of the first (nominal) and second (fast-path) trajectory planners addresses a specific engineering challenge: the latency between perception and action. This mirrors the reasoning in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games, where a specific, automated method for a technical task (animation) was found eligible because it didn't preempt all ways of doing the task.
Specific Hardware Constraints: The claim recites "sensors positioned on the vehicle" and "trajectory planners... configured for parallel operation." These are physical components and specific hardware configurations that limit the claim to a concrete technological environment, moving it away from the realm of "disembodied" abstract ideas.
Based on the current USPTO guidance and judicial precedents, the rejection of claims 1 – 15 and 17 – 23 as being directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1 – 11, 14 – 20 and 22 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0278277 A1 to Tao et al. (herein after “Tao et al. publication") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0373566 A1 to Agarwal et al. (herein after “Agarwal et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 22 and 23,
the Tao et al. publication discloses a system (100) for selecting a trajectory for a vehicle (101), the system comprising one or more processors (111) and memory (103, 121) storing one or more computer programs (124) that include computer instructions (see FIG. 1 and ¶20 – ¶26), which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
receive first perception data from one or more sensors (115) positioned on the vehicle at a first time (see ¶20);
generate, using a first trajectory planner, at least one nominal trajectory
based on the first perception data (see ¶20); and
receive second perception data from the one or more sensors (115) at a
second time after the first time (see ¶20).
The Tao et al. publication, however, fails to disclose
generating, using a second trajectory planner different from the first trajectory planner, at least one fast-path trajectory based on the second perception data; and
select a trajectory from the at least one nominal trajectory and the at least one fast-path trajectory, wherein the first and second trajectory planners are configured for parallel operation such that the second trajectory planner can generate the at least one fast-path trajectory during a time interval when the first trajectory planner is generating the at least one nominal trajectory.
Using a first trajectory planner and a second trajectory planner different from the first trajectory planner, wherein the first and second trajectory planners are configured for parallel operation to generate a candidate trajectory to be used to control an autonomous vehicle is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Agarwal et al. publication who discloses that “a planner component can explore various trajectories, e.g. at least one of a fast-path trajectory or one nominal trajectory, and/or actions in parallel, leading towards optimal outcomes in terms of autonomous vehicle control.” (See ¶33.) According to the Agarwal et al. publication, “the trajectory generation discussed herein can be performed more accurately, may require less processing power, and/or may require less memory than conventional trajectory generation techniques . . . .” (See ¶33.) Such disclosure suggests generating, using a second trajectory planner different from the first trajectory planner, at least one fast-path trajectory based on the second perception data, and select a trajectory from the at least one nominal trajectory and the at least one fast-path trajectory, wherein the first and second trajectory planners are configured for parallel operation such that the second trajectory planner can generate the at least one fast-path trajectory during a time interval when the first trajectory planner is generating the at least one nominal trajectory.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Tao et al. publication to generate, using a second trajectory planner different from the first trajectory planner, at least one fast-path trajectory based on the second perception data, and select a trajectory from the at least one nominal trajectory and the at least one fast-path trajectory, wherein the first and second trajectory planners are configured for parallel operation such that the second trajectory planner can generate the at least one fast-path trajectory during a time interval when the first trajectory planner is generating the at least one nominal trajectory, as suggested by the Agarwal et al. publication, in order to generate a trajectory that is more accurate, require less processing power, and/or require less memory than conventional trajectory generation techniques.
As to claim 2,
the Tao et al. publication discloses generating at least one fast-path trajectory based on the second perception data comprises: determining at least one priority constraint based on the second perception data, wherein the at least one priority constraint comprises a constraint not determined based on the first perception data; and modifying a previously selected trajectory based on the at least one priority constraint. (See ¶20 – ¶22.)
As to claim 3,
the Tao et al. publication discloses the at least one priority constraint being determined based on a priority environmental feature. (See ¶20 – ¶22.)
As to claim 4,
the Tao et al. publication discloses the priority environmental feature comprising a detected environmental feature determined to be a priority environmental feature based on one or more predefined criteria. (See ¶20 – ¶22.)
As to claim 5,
the Tao et al. publication discloses modifying the previously selected trajectory comprises applying a time bounded modification to the previously selected trajectory. (See ¶47.)
As to claim 6,
the Tao et al. publication discloses applying the time bounded modification comprises applying a non-linear optimization technique. (See ¶47.)
As to claim 7,
the Tao et al. publication discloses the at least one priority constraint being determined based on a detected object not detected in the first perception data. (See ¶20 – ¶22.)
As to claim 8,
the Tao et al. publication discloses the priority constraint being determined based on a detected object within a temporal or spatial tolerance of a previous trajectory of the vehicle. (See ¶20 – ¶22.)
As to claim 9,
the Tao et al. publication discloses the priority constraint being determined based on a detected object predicted to intersect with the previously selected trajectory of the vehicle. (See ¶20 – ¶22.)
As to claim 10,
the Tao et al. publication discloses the priority constraint being determined based on a detected vulnerable road user. (See ¶49.)
As to claim 11,
the Tao et al. publication discloses the selected trajectory being selected based on a most up to date perception data. (See ¶19 and ¶48 for updated driving environment.)
As to claim 14,
the Tao et al. publication discloses determining a vehicle control command based on the selected trajectory. (See FIGS. 1, 3A and 3B and ¶37, where the “perception and planning system 110 includes, but is not limited to, . . . decision module 304, [and] planning module 305” and ¶45, where the “decision module 304 decides what to do with the object, while planning module 305 determines how to do it. For example, for a given object, decision module 304 may decide to pass the object, while planning module 305 may determine whether to pass on the left side or right side of the object”; see also ¶46, where “[b]ased on the planning and control data, control module 306 controls and drives the autonomous vehicle, by sending proper commands or signals to vehicle control system 111, according to a route or path defined by the planning and control data.”)
As to claim 15,
the Tao et al. publication discloses transmitting a signal to a vehicle control component based on the determined vehicle control command. (See FIG. 1 and ¶24, where “network configuration 100 includes autonomous vehicle 101 that may be communicatively coupled to one or more servers 103-104 over a network 102.”.)
As to claim 16,
the Tao et al. publication discloses controlling at least one of a throttle, brake, or steering input of the vehicle based on the signal. (See ¶46.)
As to claim 17,
the Tao et al. publication discloses generating the at least one nominal trajectory comprising: for an action to be executed by the vehicle: determining a plurality of constraints associated with the action based on the first perception data; and generating at least one feasible trajectory based on the plurality of constraints associated with the selected action. (See ¶20 – ¶22.)
As to claim 18,
the Tao et al. publication discloses the plurality of constraints being determined based on at least one of static obstacles, dynamic obstacles, predicted actions of other actors, road features, speed limits, trajectory curvature limits, map data, and vehicle capabilities. (See ¶20 – ¶22.)
As to claim 19,
the Tao et al. publication discloses the at least one nominal trajectory being
generated without reference to a previously selected trajectory. (See ¶20.)
As to claim 20,
the Tao et al. publication discloses generating the at least one nominal
trajectory comprises generating a plurality of feasible trajectories. (See ¶20.)
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Tao et al. publication in view of the Agarwal et al. publication, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0253663 A1 to Spielberg et al. (herein after “Spielberg et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 12 and 13,
the modified Tao et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
selecting the trajectory comprises: generating respective trajectory scores for the at least one nominal trajectory and the at least one priority trajectory; comparing the respective trajectory scores for the at least one nominal trajectory and the at least one fast-path trajectory; and selecting a trajectory based on the comparison of the respective scores generated for each trajectory, wherein the respective trajectory scores are generated based on at least one of a safety metric, a feasibility metric, and a comfort metric.
The Spielberg et al. publication discloses “route and destination information being input into route planner 506 which generates a route to the destination. The route is input into maneuver extractor 507 which outputs a number of homotopies based on the predicted states (e.g., position, velocity, acceleration, heading) of agents by state predictor 502 and the state of vehicle 509. Candidate trajectory generator 508 generates a trajectory for each homotopy (maneuver) which is compared with rules in trajectory selector 503 in an iterative optimization problem that scores each candidate trajectory based on a minimization of one or more cost functions (e.g., collision, comfort). In some embodiments, a best trajectory is selected based on comparison of the scores, where in some embodiments the candidate trajectory with the lowest cost score is selected as the best trajectory for the vehicle.” (See ¶118.) Such disclosure suggests selecting the trajectory comprises: generating respective trajectory scores for the at least one nominal trajectory and the at least one priority trajectory, comparing the respective trajectory scores for the at least one nominal trajectory and the at least one fast-path trajectory, and selecting a trajectory based on the comparison of the respective scores generated for each trajectory, wherein the respective trajectory scores are generated based on at least a comfort metric.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Tao et al. publication to select the trajectory comprises: generating respective trajectory scores for the at least one nominal trajectory and the at least one priority trajectory, compare the respective trajectory scores for the at least one nominal trajectory and the at least one fast-path trajectory, and select a trajectory based on the comparison of the respective scores generated for each trajectory, wherein the respective trajectory scores are generated based on at least a comfort metric, as suggested by the Spielberg et al. publication, in order to adapt vehicle driving based on real-time perception.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Tao et al. publication in view of the Agarwal et al. publication, and further in view of the Tao et al. publication.
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 21,
the modified Tao et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
storing the at least one nominal trajectory in a memory during a time between generating the at least one nominal trajectory and generating the at least one fast-path trajectory.
According to the Tao et al. publication, “[p]erception and planning system 110 obtains the trip related data. For example, perception and planning system 110 may obtain location and route information from an MPOI server, which may be a part of servers 103-104. The location server provides location services and the MPOI server provides map services and the POIs of certain locations. Alternatively, such location and MPOI information may be cached locally in a persistent storage device of perception and planning system 110.” (See ¶33.)(Emphasis added.) “For each of the objects, decision module 304 makes a decision regarding how to handle the object. For example, for a particular object (e.g., another vehicle in a crossing route) as well as its metadata describing the object (e.g., a speed, direction, turning angle), decision module 304 decides how to encounter the object (e.g., overtake, yield, stop, pass). Decision module 304 may make such decisions according to a set of rules such as traffic rules or driving rules 312, which may be stored in persistent storage device 352.” (See ¶43.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests storing the at least one nominal trajectory in a memory during a time between generating the at least one nominal trajectory and generating the at least one fast-path trajectory.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Tao et al. publication to store the at least one nominal trajectory in a memory during a time between generating the at least one nominal trajectory and generating the at least one fast-path trajectory, as suggested by the Tao et al. publication, in order to adapt vehicle driving based on real-time perception.
Conclusion
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.
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666