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
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Amendments to the claims have been recorded.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new references being used in the current rejection.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Fig.2-11 are presented empty with only numbering. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “unit is configured to” in claims 1-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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, 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 1-7, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazzoli CN 1129622 in view of Dieckmann US 20230087332.
1, 9, 15. A system for measuring vehicle parameters, comprising:
an inertial measurement unit configured to measure an inertial parameter of a vehicle,721; inertial data (e.g., IMU data) can be used
the measured inertial parameter associated with a first subset of plurality of degrees of freedom;722; based on the positioning data of the LiDAR map, visual measurement data (e.g., using image data); [first subset] or RADAR [second subset] or visual-based feature map data (e.g., using a non-LiDAR series production sensor) [third subset]
a virtual measurement unit configured to receive a plurality of measured parameters from one or more other sensors of the vehicle, and 735; remote operator 3614 sitting in the VR box or using VR earphone to receive the sensor signal in real time.
emulate the inertial parameter by combining the plurality of measured parameters, 742; AV system 3692 information (e.g., plan track, sensing environment, vehicle component, or a combination thereof, etc.). On the other hand, when the remote operator is waiting for remote operation, the AV system 3692 implements a retroversion or default operation.
the emulated inertial parameter associated with a second subset of the plurality of degrees of freedom, 722; or visual-based feature map data (e.g., using a non-LiDAR series production sensor) to simulate a GNSS receiver.
a controller configured to control vehicle operation based on at least one of the measured inertial parameter and the emulated inertial parameter. 751; the AV system 3692 autonomously operates. During these operations, the control system 3607 (FIG. 36) affects the control operation of the AV system 3692. For example, the control system 3607 includes a controller 1102, which controls the throttle/brake 1206 and the steering angle actuator 1212 (FIG. 12).
Frazzoli teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach
wherein the emulated inertial parameter includes a lateral acceleration, the lateral acceleration is emulated based on a yaw rate and a velocity of the vehicle, and the yaw rate is estimated based on a wheel speed measurement;
However, Dieckmann para 24; The cornering force is a dynamic variable that depends on a slip angle, a wheel load, a slip, a wheel camber, and friction coefficients. The cornering force is an output variable of the vehicle model, which describes the dynamic vehicle condition on the basis of various dynamic sensor data (for example, lateral and longitudinal acceleration, yaw rate, steering angle, wheel speed, vehicle speed, et cetera) and statistical variables such as vehicle mass, center of gravity, wheelbase, vehicle geometry, et cetera.
Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for the purpose of improving cornering such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. The combination is also considered obvious to try as stated in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
2 and 10. The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of measured parameters include at least one of a parameter indicative of an environment around the vehicle and a vehicle dynamics parameter.789; camera module, Lidar, Radar …
3 and 16. The system of claim 2, wherein the plurality of measured parameters include at least one parameter derived from a visual odometry process using a series of camera images, and a dynamics parameter measured by a vehicle sensor.981; planning module can use constant speed (CV) and/or constant acceleration (CA) model to evaluate the track (or track corridor) generated by the second planning module.
4, 11, 17. The system of claim 1, wherein the virtual measurement unit is configured to apply a correction to the measured inertial parameter.346; the controller 1102 receives the feedback used when adjusting the input provided to the accelerator and the steering. based on the difference 1113 between the measurement rate and [emulated i.e. matched] the desired output.
5, 12, 18. The system of claim 1, wherein the virtual measurement unit is configured to enhance the measured inertial parameter by fusing the measured inertial parameter and the plurality of measured parameters, to generate the emulated inertial parameter associated with a higher performance inertial measurement.345; receives the feedback used when adjusting the input provided to the accelerator and the steering [plurality of measured parameters]. For example, if AV 100 encounters an interference 1110 such as hills, the measurement rate 1112 of the AV 100 may be lowered to below the desired output rate. Any measurement output 1114 may be provided to the controller 1102, such that the desired adjustment may be made, for example, based on the difference [fusing] 1113 between the measurement rate and the desired output.
6. 13. 19. The system of claim 1, wherein the emulated inertial parameter is used to detect a fault in the inertial measurement unit. 51; using system and technology for detecting and processing sensor fault in autonomous delivery vehicle.
7, 14, 20. The system of claim 1, wherein the virtual measurement unit is configured to provide redundancy to the inertial measurement unit, and operate to provide inertial measurements when the inertial measurement unit is in a fault condition. 39; The technology provides redundancy in the control operation, so as to prevent a control system from experiencing failure or performance degradation. The redundancy in the control also allows the AV to select which control system to use according to the measurement performance of the control system.
14. The method of claim 9, wherein the virtual measurement unit is configured [configured but not actually performed] to provide redundancy to the inertial measurement unit, and operate to provide inertial measurements when [conditional not required] the inertial measurement unit is in a fault condition.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazzoli and Dieckmann in view of Gideon US 20250065900.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the visual odometry process includes:
collecting a plurality of images of an environment around the vehicle; 632; range of LiDAR sensor, resolution, or sensor resolution of three-dimensional camera, depth resolution (for z-axis), bit depth, pixel size, frame rate, focal length, field of view (FOV);
extracting a set of matched features across each of the plurality of images; exposure range and matching algorithm (e.g., OpenCV block matcher, OpenCV SGBM matcher) and so on.
Frazzoli and Dieckmann teach all of the limitations of claim 8 but do not teach
estimating an orientation of the vehicle for each of the plurality of images based on the set of matched features; and
deriving the at least one parameter based on a change in the orientation.
However, Gideon teaches
estimating an orientation of the vehicle for each of the plurality of images based on the set of matched features; and Gideon 313; precise vehicle position, vehicle orientation and image pixel depth using Light Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) measurements may be used to accurately match world positions in different drives.
deriving the at least one parameter based on a change in the orientation. 314; the system may generate an autonomous vehicle road navigation model based on the observed trajectories of vehicles traversing a common road segment (e.g., which may correspond to the trajectory information forwarded to a server by a vehicle).
Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for the purpose of to accurately match world positions in different drives such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. The combination is also considered obvious to try as stated in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SIHAR A KARWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11am.-7pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on 571-270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SIHAR A KARWAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3664