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 .
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.
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed on 01/27/2026.
Claims 1, 7-8, 11, and 13-16 are amended.
Claims 9-10 and 17 are cancelled.
Claims 1-8 and 11-16 are currently pending.
Claims 1-8 and 11-16 have been examined.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “. . . a vehicle-to-X communication device configured to . . .”, “. . . a test device configured to . . .”, and “. . . a maneuver planning device configured to . . .” in claim 8.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The examiner notes that the corresponding structure for these limitations can be found in Figure 2 of the specification, elements 244, 226, and 230, respectively, and the corresponding function for these limitations can be found in Figure 1 of the specification, elements 102, 104, and 106-110, respectively.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (WO 2021077818 A1; hereinafter Shen) in view of Schwindt et al. (US 20210139018 A1; hereinafter Schwindt).
Regarding claim 1, Shen discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
A method to be carried out by an electronic control device of a first vehicle (see Shen at least pg. 2, paragraph 2 “This application relates to . . . a method and system for predicting motion trajectory.”; pg. 5, paragraph 5 “. . . the present application also provides a vehicle. The vehicle includes a storage unit and a processing unit. The storage unit of the vehicle is used to store a set of computer instructions and data sets. The processing unit executes the computer instructions stored in the storage unit, and the processing unit reads the computer instructions stored in the storage unit. The data set of the storage unit is taken, so that the vehicle executes the method . . .”), the method comprising:
receiving a planned trajectory of a second vehicle by a vehicle-to-X communication device of the first vehicle (see Shen at least pg. 6, paragraph 6 “The target in the embodiment of this application refers to a moving object on or around a traffic road, such as pedestrians, vehicles, etc.”; pg. 6, paragraph 13 “V2X technology specifically includes: vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technology that enables vehicles to establish communication connections with their surrounding vehicles . . .”; pg. 9, paragraph 6 "Thus, the motion trajectory set A that the vehicle A can send to the smart car includes the motion trajectories of the target 1, the target 2, and the target 3, and also includes the motion trajectory of the vehicle A.");
testing the planned trajectory of the second vehicle for absence of contradiction with environmental information of the first vehicle by a test device of the first vehicle, wherein the environmental information of the first vehicle was acquired by at least one sensor of the first vehicle (see Shen at least pg. 5, paragraph 5 “. . . the present application also provides a vehicle. The vehicle includes a storage unit and a processing unit. The storage unit of the vehicle is used to store a set of computer instructions and data sets. The processing unit executes the computer instructions stored in the storage unit, and the processing unit reads the computer instructions stored in the storage unit. The data set of the storage unit is taken, so that the vehicle executes the method provided by the first aspect or any one of the possible implementation manners of the first aspect.”; pg. 13, paragraph 1 “For the case where N motion trajectories include motion trajectories provided by multiple devices, that is, N is greater than 1 (for example: including the motion trajectory predicted by the smart car for the first target, and also includes the motion trajectory that other devices send to the smart car. The movement trajectory of the first target; or, the movement trajectory of the first target includes the movement trajectory of the first target sent by multiple devices to the smart car), cross-comparing each movement trajectory of the first target, To confirm whether there is an unreliable movement trajectory in the movement trajectory of the first target, for example, a jumping movement trajectory or a fake movement trajectory, and the unreliable movement trajectory is discarded. This application does not limit the cross-comparison method.”; pg. 9, paragraph 6 "Vehicle A is a car that has both communication capabilities and perception and calculation capabilities. The perception area of vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) includes target 1 (i.e., second vehicle), target 2, target 3, and the vehicle A. Real-time information of target 1, target 2, and target 3 in the sensing area can be obtained through the self-loaded sensor system, which includes real-time position information, speed information, orientation information, type information, feature information, etc. of the target[.]");
wherein the environmental information describes an environmental model of the first vehicle, and the environmental information is obtained from a fusion of sensor information from the at least one sensor of the first vehicle (see Shen at least pg. 8, paragraph 3 “The sensor system 101 is used to detect and perceive targets in the surrounding environment of the smart car, and obtain information about targets in the surrounding environment in real time. The sensor system 101 may include various hardware sensors or software sensors. For example, the sensor system 101 may include any one or more of a camera, a laser radar, a millimeter wave radar, an ultrasonic radar, and an infrared sensor. Each type of sensor in the sensor system 101 may include one or more [(i.e., fused sensor data)].”; pg. 9, paragraph 6 "Vehicle A is a car that has both communication capabilities and perception and calculation capabilities. The perception area of vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) includes target 1 (i.e., second vehicle), target 2, target 3, and the vehicle A. Real-time information of target 1, target 2, and target 3 in the sensing area can be obtained through the self-loaded sensor system, which includes real-time position information, speed information, orientation information, type information, feature information, etc. of the target[.]");
executing trajectory planning by a maneuver planning device of the first vehicle (see Shen at least pg. 9, paragraph 6 ". . . the vehicle A can plan the movement trajectory of the vehicle A itself for a period of time in the future according to the predicted movement trajectories of the three targets in the sensing area to obtain the movement trajectory of the vehicle A.");
using the planned trajectory of the second vehicle for the trajectory planning of the first vehicle when the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is confirmed (see Shen at least pg. 13, paragraph 1 ". . . including the motion trajectory predicted by the smart car for the first target, and also includes the motion trajectory that other devices send to the smart car. The movement trajectory of the first target; or, the movement trajectory of the first target includes the movement trajectory of the first target sent by multiple devices to the smart car), cross-comparing each movement trajectory of the first target, To confirm whether there is an unreliable movement trajectory in the movement trajectory of the first target, for example, a jumping movement trajectory or a fake movement trajectory, and the unreliable movement trajectory is discarded . . . the degree of coincidence between two motion trajectories can be calculated, and the motion trajectories whose degree of coincidence with the motion trajectories provided by other devices are all lower than the threshold are discarded, and a safe motion trajectory is retained."; pg. 14, paragraph 3 “. . . the smart car can use the motion trajectory planned by the first target for itself as the applied motion trajectory of the first target, and the applied motion trajectory of the first target will be used for the subsequent driving decision of the smart car. And trajectory planning.”; Examiner notes that the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is used for the motion planning of vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) when the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is not in conflict with the trajectory predicted by vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) based on environmental sensor data); or
not using the planned trajectory of the second vehicle for the trajectory planning of the first vehicle when the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is not confirmed (see Shen at least pg. 13, paragraph 1 ". . . including the motion trajectory predicted by the smart car for the first target, and also includes the motion trajectory that other devices send to the smart car. The movement trajectory of the first target; or, the movement trajectory of the first target includes the movement trajectory of the first target sent by multiple devices to the smart car), cross-comparing each movement trajectory of the first target, To confirm whether there is an unreliable movement trajectory in the movement trajectory of the first target, for example, a jumping movement trajectory or a fake movement trajectory, and the unreliable movement trajectory is discarded . . . the degree of coincidence between two motion trajectories can be calculated, and the motion trajectories whose degree of coincidence with the motion trajectories provided by other devices are all lower than the threshold are discarded, and a safe motion trajectory is retained."; Examiner notes that when the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is in conflict with the trajectory predicted by vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) based on environmental sensor data, the conflicting information is discarded); and
outputting a signal for executing a planned trajectory of the first vehicle (see Shen at least pg. 9, paragraph 6 "Thus, the motion trajectory set A that the vehicle A can send to the smart car includes the motion trajectories of the target 1, the target 2, and the target 3, and also includes the motion trajectory of the vehicle A.") . . .
While Shen discloses outputting a signal for executing a planned trajectory of the first vehicle, it does not appear to explicitly disclose using the signal to control a vehicle device.
Schwindt teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . outputting a signal for executing a planned trajectory of the first vehicle and using the signal to control a vehicle device (see Schwindt at least [0015] “Another example embodiment provides a method for controlling a vehicle. The method includes receiving sensor information from one or more sensors positioned on the vehicle and configured to sense an environment surrounding the vehicle. The method includes generating, with an autonomous driving subsystem communicatively coupled to the one or more sensors and based on the sensor information, a model of the environment surrounding the vehicle. The method includes determining, with the autonomous driving subsystem and based on the model of the environment surrounding the vehicle, a plurality of possible trajectories for the vehicle. The method includes selecting, from the plurality of possible trajectories, a travel path for the vehicle. The method includes transmitting the travel path to the collision mitigation subsystem configured to control a braking system of the vehicle.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the outputting a signal for executing a planned trajectory of the first vehicle of Shen with the using the signal to control a vehicle device as taught by Schwindt to use the signal to control a vehicle device. Doing so would allow the vehicle to actively avoid collisions.
Regarding claim 2, Shen and Schwindt disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Shen discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein a most probable trajectory for the second vehicle is calculated by the maneuver planning device and used for the trajectory planning of the first vehicle when the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is not used for the trajectory planning of the first vehicle (see Shen at least pg. 3, paragraph 2 “. . . according to the credibility of each motion trajectory, the N motion trajectories are merged to obtain the applied motion trajectory of the first target.”; pg. 5, paragraph 5 “. . . the present application also provides a vehicle. The vehicle includes a storage unit and a processing unit. The storage unit of the vehicle is used to store a set of computer instructions and data sets. The processing unit executes the computer instructions stored in the storage unit, and the processing unit reads the computer instructions stored in the storage unit. The data set of the storage unit is taken, so that the vehicle executes the method provided by the first aspect or any one of the possible implementation manners of the first aspect.”; pg. 14, paragraph 3 “. . . the smart car can use the motion trajectory planned by the first target for itself as the applied motion trajectory of the first target, and the applied motion trajectory of the first target will be used for the subsequent driving decision of the smart car. And trajectory planning.”).
Regarding claim 3, Shen and Schwindt disclose the subject matter of claim 2 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Shen discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein for the calculation of at least one of the most probable trajectory of the second vehicle, a current position, a current speed and a current course of the second vehicle is determined using information at least one of received by vehicle-to-X communication and based on the environmental information of the first vehicle (see Shen at least pg. 3, paragraph 2 “. . . according to the credibility of each motion trajectory, the N motion trajectories are merged to obtain the applied motion trajectory of the first target.”; pg. 13, paragraph 1 “For the case where N motion trajectories include motion trajectories provided by multiple devices, that is, N is greater than 1 (for example: including the motion trajectory predicted by the smart car for the first target . . . ) . . .”; pg. 14, paragraph 3 “. . . the smart car can use the motion trajectory planned by the first target for itself as the applied motion trajectory of the first target, and the applied motion trajectory of the first target will be used for the subsequent driving decision of the smart car. And trajectory planning.”).
Regarding claim 4, Shen and Schwindt disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Shen discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is confirmed by the test device (see Shen at least pg. 13, paragraph 1 ". . . including the motion trajectory predicted by the smart car for the first target, and also includes the motion trajectory that other devices send to the smart car. The movement trajectory of the first target; or, the movement trajectory of the first target includes the movement trajectory of the first target sent by multiple devices to the smart car), cross-comparing each movement trajectory of the first target, To confirm whether there is an unreliable movement trajectory in the movement trajectory of the first target, for example, a jumping movement trajectory or a fake movement trajectory, and the unreliable movement trajectory is discarded . . . the degree of coincidence between two motion trajectories can be calculated, and the motion trajectories whose degree of coincidence with the motion trajectories provided by other devices are all lower than the threshold are discarded, and a safe motion trajectory is retained."; pg. 13, paragraph 3 “. . . the smart car can use the motion trajectory planned by the first target for itself as the applied motion trajectory of the first target, and the applied motion trajectory of the first target will be used for the subsequent driving decision of the smart car. And trajectory planning.”; Examiner notes that the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is used for the motion planning of vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) when the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is not in conflict with the trajectory predicted by vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) based on environmental sensor data) . . .
While Shen discloses confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device, it does not appear to explicitly disclose confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle when it is ascertained based on the environmental information that the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is collision-free with respect to at least one of the first vehicle, another road user, and some other object.
Schwindt teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is confirmed . . . when it is ascertained based on the environmental information that the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is collision-free with respect to at least one of the first vehicle, another road user, and some other object (see Schwindt at least [0046] “. . . the collision mitigation subsystem 106 determines, based on a characteristic of the at least one object and the travel path, whether a collision between the vehicle and the object is likely (an imminent collision).”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device of Shen with the confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle when it is ascertained based on the environmental information that the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is collision-free with respect to some other object as taught by Schwindt to confirm the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device when it is ascertained based on the environmental information that the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is collision-free with respect to some other object. Doing so would enable the detection of imminent collisions and therefore enable the operation of downstream collision mitigation systems, as recognized by Schwindt (see Schwindt at least [0047] “. . . in response to determining the likely collision, the collision mitigation subsystem 106 transmits, to the braking system, a mitigation command based on the likely collision.”).
Regarding claim 5, Shen and Schwindt disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Shen discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is confirmed by the test device (see Shen at least pg. 13, paragraph 1 ". . . including the motion trajectory predicted by the smart car for the first target, and also includes the motion trajectory that other devices send to the smart car. The movement trajectory of the first target; or, the movement trajectory of the first target includes the movement trajectory of the first target sent by multiple devices to the smart car), cross-comparing each movement trajectory of the first target, To confirm whether there is an unreliable movement trajectory in the movement trajectory of the first target, for example, a jumping movement trajectory or a fake movement trajectory, and the unreliable movement trajectory is discarded . . . the degree of coincidence between two motion trajectories can be calculated, and the motion trajectories whose degree of coincidence with the motion trajectories provided by other devices are all lower than the threshold are discarded, and a safe motion trajectory is retained."; pg. 14, paragraph 3 “. . . the smart car can use the motion trajectory planned by the first target for itself as the applied motion trajectory of the first target, and the applied motion trajectory of the first target will be used for the subsequent driving decision of the smart car. And trajectory planning.”; Examiner notes that the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is used for the motion planning of vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) when the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is not in conflict with the trajectory predicted by vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) based on environmental sensor data) . . .
While Shen discloses confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device, it does not appear to explicitly disclose confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle when a latency of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle does not exceed a limit value.
Schwindt teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is confirmed . . . when a latency of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle does not exceed a limit value (see Schwindt at least [0046] “. . . the collision mitigation subsystem 106 determines, based on a characteristic of the at least one object and the travel path, whether a collision between the vehicle and the object is likely (an imminent collision). For example, when the directions and velocities of the vehicle and the object indicate that the two will occupy the same location unless evasive action is taken within a time threshold, then a collision is imminent. In some embodiments, the time threshold is set based on a reaction latency of the autonomous driving subsystem 104.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device of Shen with the confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle when a latency of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle does not exceed a limit value as taught by Schwindt to confirm the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device when a latency of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle does not exceed a limit value. Doing so would enable the accurate detection of imminent collisions and therefore enable the operation of downstream collision mitigation systems, as recognized by Schwindt (see Schwindt at least [0047] “. . . in response to determining the likely collision, the collision mitigation subsystem 106 transmits, to the braking system, a mitigation command based on the likely collision.”).
Regarding claim 6, Shen and Schwindt disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Shen discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is not confirmed by the test device (see Shen at least pg. 13, paragraph 1 ". . . including the motion trajectory predicted by the smart car for the first target, and also includes the motion trajectory that other devices send to the smart car. The movement trajectory of the first target; or, the movement trajectory of the first target includes the movement trajectory of the first target sent by multiple devices to the smart car), cross-comparing each movement trajectory of the first target, To confirm whether there is an unreliable movement trajectory in the movement trajectory of the first target, for example, a jumping movement trajectory or a fake movement trajectory, and the unreliable movement trajectory is discarded . . . the degree of coincidence between two motion trajectories can be calculated, and the motion trajectories whose degree of coincidence with the motion trajectories provided by other devices are all lower than the threshold are discarded, and a safe motion trajectory is retained."; Examiner notes that when the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is in conflict with the trajectory predicted by vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) based on environmental sensor data, the conflicting information is discarded) . . .
While Shen discloses not confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device, it does not appear to explicitly disclose not confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle when it is ascertained based on the environmental information that the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is not collision-free with respect to at least one of the first vehicle, another road user and some other object.
Schwindt teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . wherein the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the
second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is not confirmed . . . when it is ascertained based on the environmental information that the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is not collision-free with respect to at least one of the first vehicle, another road user and some other object (see Schwindt at least [0046] “. . . the collision mitigation subsystem 106 determines, based on a characteristic of the at least one object and the travel path, whether a collision between the vehicle and the object is likely (an imminent collision).”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the not confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device of Shen with the confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the not confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle when it is ascertained based on the environmental information that the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is not collision-free with respect to some other object as taught by Schwindt to not confirm the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device when it is ascertained based on the environmental information that the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is not collision-free with respect to at least one of the first vehicle, another road user and some other object. Doing so would enable the non-detection of imminent collisions and therefore prevent the operation of downstream collision mitigation systems when not necessary, as recognized by Schwindt (see Schwindt at least [0047] “. . . in response to determining the likely collision, the collision mitigation subsystem 106 transmits, to the braking system, a mitigation command based on the likely collision.”).
Regarding claim 7, Shen and Schwindt disclose the subject matter of claim 1 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Shen discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is not confirmed by the test device (see Shen at least pg. 13, paragraph 1 ". . . including the motion trajectory predicted by the smart car for the first target, and also includes the motion trajectory that other devices send to the smart car. The movement trajectory of the first target; or, the movement trajectory of the first target includes the movement trajectory of the first target sent by multiple devices to the smart car), cross-comparing each movement trajectory of the first target, To confirm whether there is an unreliable movement trajectory in the movement trajectory of the first target, for example, a jumping movement trajectory or a fake movement trajectory, and the unreliable movement trajectory is discarded . . . the degree of coincidence between two motion trajectories can be calculated, and the motion trajectories whose degree of coincidence with the motion trajectories provided by other devices are all lower than the threshold are discarded, and a safe motion trajectory is retained."; Examiner notes that when the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is in conflict with the trajectory predicted by vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) based on environmental sensor data, the conflicting information is discarded) . . .
While Shen discloses not confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device, it does not appear to explicitly disclose not confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle when a latency of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle exceeds the limit value.
Schwindt teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is not confirmed . . . when a latency of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle exceeds a limit value (see Schwindt at least [0046] “. . . the collision mitigation subsystem 106 determines, based on a characteristic of the at least one object and the travel path, whether a collision between the vehicle and the object is likely (an imminent collision). For example, when the directions and velocities of the vehicle and the object indicate that the two will occupy the same location unless evasive action is taken within a time threshold, then a collision is imminent. In some embodiments, the time threshold is set based on a reaction latency of the autonomous driving subsystem 104.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the not confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device of Shen with the confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the not confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle when a latency of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle exceeds the limit value as taught by Schwindt to not confirm the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device when a latency of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle exceeds the limit value. Doing so would enable the non-detection of imminent collisions and therefore accurately prevent the operation of downstream collision mitigation systems when not necessary, as recognized by Schwindt (see Schwindt at least [0047] “. . . in response to determining the likely collision, the collision mitigation subsystem 106 transmits, to the braking system, a mitigation command based on the likely collision.”).
Regarding claim 8, Shen discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
An electronic control device for a first vehicle (see Shen at least pg. 5, paragraph 5 “. . . the present application also provides a vehicle. The vehicle includes a storage unit and a processing unit. The storage unit of the vehicle is used to store a set of computer instructions and data sets. The processing unit executes the computer instructions stored in the storage unit, and the processing unit reads the computer instructions stored in the storage unit. The data set of the storage unit is taken, so that the vehicle executes the method . . .”), comprising:
a vehicle-to-X communication device configured to receive a planned trajectory of a second vehicle (see Shen at least pg. 6, paragraph 6 “The target in the embodiment of this application refers to a moving object on or around a traffic road, such as pedestrians, vehicles, etc.”; pg. 6, paragraph 13 “V2X technology specifically includes: vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technology that enables vehicles to establish communication connections with their surrounding vehicles . . .”; pg. 9, paragraph 6 "Thus, the motion trajectory set A that the vehicle A can send to the smart car includes the motion trajectories of the target 1, the target 2, and the target 3, and also includes the motion trajectory of the vehicle A.");
a test device, configured to perform a test of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle for absence of contradiction with environmental information of the first vehicle, wherein the environmental information of the first vehicle was acquired by at least one sensor of the first vehicle (see Shen at least pg. 5, paragraph 5 “. . . the present application also provides a vehicle. The vehicle includes a storage unit and a processing unit. The storage unit of the vehicle is used to store a set of computer instructions and data sets. The processing unit executes the computer instructions stored in the storage unit, and the processing unit reads the computer instructions stored in the storage unit. The data set of the storage unit is taken, so that the vehicle executes the method provided by the first aspect or any one of the possible implementation manners of the first aspect.”; pg. 13, paragraph 1 “For the case where N motion trajectories include motion trajectories provided by multiple devices, that is, N is greater than 1 (for example: including the motion trajectory predicted by the smart car for the first target, and also includes the motion trajectory that other devices send to the smart car. The movement trajectory of the first target; or, the movement trajectory of the first target includes the movement trajectory of the first target sent by multiple devices to the smart car), cross-comparing each movement trajectory of the first target, To confirm whether there is an unreliable movement trajectory in the movement trajectory of the first target, for example, a jumping movement trajectory or a fake movement trajectory, and the unreliable movement trajectory is discarded. This application does not limit the cross-comparison method.”; pg. 9, paragraph 6 "Vehicle A is a car that has both communication capabilities and perception and calculation capabilities. The perception area of vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) includes target 1 (i.e., second vehicle), target 2, target 3, and the vehicle A. Real-time information of target 1, target 2, and target 3 in the sensing area can be obtained through the self-loaded sensor system, which includes real-time position information, speed information, orientation information, type information, feature information, etc. of the target[.]");
wherein the environmental information describes an environmental model of the first vehicle, and the environmental information is obtained from a fusion of sensor information from the at least one sensor of the first vehicle (see Shen at least pg. 8, paragraph 3 “The sensor system 101 is used to detect and perceive targets in the surrounding environment of the smart car, and obtain information about targets in the surrounding environment in real time. The sensor system 101 may include various hardware sensors or software sensors. For example, the sensor system 101 may include any one or more of a camera, a laser radar, a millimeter wave radar, an ultrasonic radar, and an infrared sensor. Each type of sensor in the sensor system 101 may include one or more [(i.e., fused sensor data)].”; pg. 9, paragraph 6 "Vehicle A is a car that has both communication capabilities and perception and calculation capabilities. The perception area of vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) includes target 1 (i.e., second vehicle), target 2, target 3, and the vehicle A. Real-time information of target 1, target 2, and target 3 in the sensing area can be obtained through the self-loaded sensor system, which includes real-time position information, speed information, orientation information, type information, feature information, etc. of the target[.]");
a maneuver planning device, configured to use the planned trajectory of the second vehicle for the trajectory planning of the first vehicle when the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is confirmed (see Shen at least pg. 13, paragraph 1 ". . . including the motion trajectory predicted by the smart car for the first target, and also includes the motion trajectory that other devices send to the smart car. The movement trajectory of the first target; or, the movement trajectory of the first target includes the movement trajectory of the first target sent by multiple devices to the smart car), cross-comparing each movement trajectory of the first target, To confirm whether there is an unreliable movement trajectory in the movement trajectory of the first target, for example, a jumping movement trajectory or a fake movement trajectory, and the unreliable movement trajectory is discarded . . . the degree of coincidence between two motion trajectories can be calculated, and the motion trajectories whose degree of coincidence with the motion trajectories provided by other devices are all lower than the threshold are discarded, and a safe motion trajectory is retained."; pg. 14, paragraph 3“. . . the smart car can use the motion trajectory planned by the first target for itself as the applied motion trajectory of the first target, and the applied motion trajectory of the first target will be used for the subsequent driving decision of the smart car. And trajectory planning.”; Examiner notes that the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is used for the motion planning of vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) when the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is not in conflict with the trajectory predicted by vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) based on environmental sensor data), or not to use the planned trajectory of the second vehicle in the trajectory planning of the first vehicle when the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is not confirmed (see Shen at least pg. 13, paragraph 1 ". . . including the motion trajectory predicted by the smart car for the first target, and also includes the motion trajectory that other devices send to the smart car. The movement trajectory of the first target; or, the movement trajectory of the first target includes the movement trajectory of the first target sent by multiple devices to the smart car), cross-comparing each movement trajectory of the first target, To confirm whether there is an unreliable movement trajectory in the movement trajectory of the first target, for example, a jumping movement trajectory or a fake movement trajectory, and the unreliable movement trajectory is discarded . . . the degree of coincidence between two motion trajectories can be calculated, and the motion trajectories whose degree of coincidence with the motion trajectories provided by other devices are all lower than the threshold are discarded, and a safe motion trajectory is retained."; Examiner notes that when the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is in conflict with the trajectory predicted by vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) based on environmental sensor data, the conflicting information is discarded), the maneuver planning device being further configured to output a signal for executing a planned trajectory of the first vehicle (see Shen at least pg. 9, paragraph 6 "Thus, the motion trajectory set A that the vehicle A can send to the smart car includes the motion trajectories of the target 1, the target 2, and the target 3, and also includes the motion trajectory of the vehicle A.") . . .
While Shen discloses outputting a signal for executing a planned trajectory of the first vehicle, it does not appear to explicitly disclose using the signal to control a vehicle device.
Schwindt teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . output a signal for executing a planned trajectory of the first vehicle and using the signal to control a vehicle device (see Schwindt at least [0015] “Another example embodiment provides a method for controlling a vehicle. The method includes receiving sensor information from one or more sensors positioned on the vehicle and configured to sense an environment surrounding the vehicle. The method includes generating, with an autonomous driving subsystem communicatively coupled to the one or more sensors and based on the sensor information, a model of the environment surrounding the vehicle. The method includes determining, with the autonomous driving subsystem and based on the model of the environment surrounding the vehicle, a plurality of possible trajectories for the vehicle. The method includes selecting, from the plurality of possible trajectories, a travel path for the vehicle. The method includes transmitting the travel path to the collision mitigation subsystem configured to control a braking system of the vehicle.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the outputting a signal for executing a planned trajectory of the first vehicle of Shen with the using the signal to control a vehicle device as taught by Schwindt to use the signal to control a vehicle device. Doing so would allow the vehicle to actively avoid collisions.
Regarding claim 11, Shen and Schwindt discloses the subject matter of claim 8 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, She discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein a most probable trajectory for the second vehicle is calculated by the maneuver planning device and used for the trajectory planning of the first vehicle when the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is not used for the trajectory planning of the first vehicle (see Shen at least see Shen at least pg. 3, paragraph 2 “. . . according to the credibility of each motion trajectory, the N motion trajectories are merged to obtain the applied motion trajectory of the first target.”; pg. 5, paragraph 5 “. . . the present application also provides a vehicle. The vehicle includes a storage unit and a processing unit. The storage unit of the vehicle is used to store a set of computer instructions and data sets. The processing unit executes the computer instructions stored in the storage unit, and the processing unit reads the computer instructions stored in the storage unit. The data set of the storage unit is taken, so that the vehicle executes the method provided by the first aspect or any one of the possible implementation manners of the first aspect.”; pg. 14, paragraph 3 “. . . the smart car can use the motion trajectory planned by the first target for itself as the applied motion trajectory of the first target, and the applied motion trajectory of the first target will be used for the subsequent driving decision of the smart car. And trajectory planning.”).
Regarding claim 12, Shen and Schwindt disclose the subject matter of claim 11 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, She discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein for the calculation of at least one of the most probable trajectory of the second vehicle, a current position, a current speed and a current course of the second vehicle is determined using information at least one of received by vehicle-to-X communication and based on the environmental information of the first vehicle (see Shen at least pg. 3, paragraph 2 “. . . according to the credibility of each motion trajectory, the N motion trajectories are merged to obtain the applied motion trajectory of the first target.”; pg. 13, paragraph 1 “For the case where N motion trajectories include motion trajectories provided by multiple devices, that is, N is greater than 1 (for example: including the motion trajectory predicted by the smart car for the first target . . . ) . . .”; pg. 14, paragraph 3 “. . . the smart car can use the motion trajectory planned by the first target for itself as the applied motion trajectory of the first target, and the applied motion trajectory of the first target will be used for the subsequent driving decision of the smart car. And trajectory planning.”).
Regarding claim 13, Shen and Schwindt disclose the subject matter of claim 8 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Shen discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is confirmed by the test device (see Shen at least pg. 13, paragraph 1 ". . . including the motion trajectory predicted by the smart car for the first target, and also includes the motion trajectory that other devices send to the smart car. The movement trajectory of the first target; or, the movement trajectory of the first target includes the movement trajectory of the first target sent by multiple devices to the smart car), cross-comparing each movement trajectory of the first target, To confirm whether there is an unreliable movement trajectory in the movement trajectory of the first target, for example, a jumping movement trajectory or a fake movement trajectory, and the unreliable movement trajectory is discarded . . . the degree of coincidence between two motion trajectories can be calculated, and the motion trajectories whose degree of coincidence with the motion trajectories provided by other devices are all lower than the threshold are discarded, and a safe motion trajectory is retained."; pg. 14, paragraph 3 “. . . the smart car can use the motion trajectory planned by the first target for itself as the applied motion trajectory of the first target, and the applied motion trajectory of the first target will be used for the subsequent driving decision of the smart car. And trajectory planning.”; Examiner notes that the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is used for the motion planning of vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) when the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is not in conflict with the trajectory predicted by vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) based on environmental sensor data) . . .
While Shen discloses confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device, it does not appear to explicitly disclose confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle when it is ascertained based on the environmental information that the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is collision-free with respect to at least one of the first vehicle, another road user, and some other object.
Schwindt teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is confirmed . . . when it is ascertained based on the environmental information that the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is collision-free with respect to at least one of the first vehicle, another road user, and some other object (see Schwindt at least [0046] “. . . the collision mitigation subsystem 106 determines, based on a characteristic of the at least one object and the travel path, whether a collision between the vehicle and the object is likely (an imminent collision).”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device of Shen with the confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle when it is ascertained based on the environmental information that the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is collision-free with respect to some other object as taught by Schwindt to confirm the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device when it is ascertained based on the environmental information that the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is collision-free with respect to some other object. Doing so would enable the detection of imminent collisions and therefore enable the operation of downstream collision mitigation systems, as recognized by Schwindt (see Schwindt at least [0047] “. . . in response to determining the likely collision, the collision mitigation subsystem 106 transmits, to the braking system, a mitigation command based on the likely collision.”).
Regarding claim 14, Shen and Schwindt disclose the subject matter of claim 8 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Shen discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is confirmed by the test device (see Shen at least pg. 13, paragraph 1 ". . . including the motion trajectory predicted by the smart car for the first target, and also includes the motion trajectory that other devices send to the smart car. The movement trajectory of the first target; or, the movement trajectory of the first target includes the movement trajectory of the first target sent by multiple devices to the smart car), cross-comparing each movement trajectory of the first target, To confirm whether there is an unreliable movement trajectory in the movement trajectory of the first target, for example, a jumping movement trajectory or a fake movement trajectory, and the unreliable movement trajectory is discarded . . . the degree of coincidence between two motion trajectories can be calculated, and the motion trajectories whose degree of coincidence with the motion trajectories provided by other devices are all lower than the threshold are discarded, and a safe motion trajectory is retained."; pg. 14, paragraph 3 “. . . the smart car can use the motion trajectory planned by the first target for itself as the applied motion trajectory of the first target, and the applied motion trajectory of the first target will be used for the subsequent driving decision of the smart car. And trajectory planning.”; Examiner notes that the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is used for the motion planning of vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) when the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is not in conflict with the trajectory predicted by vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) based on environmental sensor data) . . .
While Shen discloses confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device, it does not appear to explicitly disclose confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle when a latency of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle does not exceed a limit value.
Schwindt teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is confirmed . . . when a latency of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle does not exceed a limit value (see Schwindt at least [0046] “. . . the collision mitigation subsystem 106 determines, based on a characteristic of the at least one object and the travel path, whether a collision between the vehicle and the object is likely (an imminent collision). For example, when the directions and velocities of the vehicle and the object indicate that the two will occupy the same location unless evasive action is taken within a time threshold, then a collision is imminent. In some embodiments, the time threshold is set based on a reaction latency of the autonomous driving subsystem 104.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device of Shen with the confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle when a latency of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle does not exceed a limit value as taught by Schwindt to confirm the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device when a latency of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle does not exceed a limit value. Doing so would enable the accurate detection of imminent collisions and therefore enable the operation of downstream collision mitigation systems, as recognized by Schwindt (see Schwindt at least [0047] “. . . in response to determining the likely collision, the collision mitigation subsystem 106 transmits, to the braking system, a mitigation command based on the likely collision.”).
Regarding claim 15, Shen and Schwindt disclose the subject matter of claim 8 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Shen discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is not confirmed by the test device (see Shen at least pg. 13, paragraph 1 ". . . including the motion trajectory predicted by the smart car for the first target, and also includes the motion trajectory that other devices send to the smart car. The movement trajectory of the first target; or, the movement trajectory of the first target includes the movement trajectory of the first target sent by multiple devices to the smart car), cross-comparing each movement trajectory of the first target, To confirm whether there is an unreliable movement trajectory in the movement trajectory of the first target, for example, a jumping movement trajectory or a fake movement trajectory, and the unreliable movement trajectory is discarded . . . the degree of coincidence between two motion trajectories can be calculated, and the motion trajectories whose degree of coincidence with the motion trajectories provided by other devices are all lower than the threshold are discarded, and a safe motion trajectory is retained."; Examiner notes that when the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is in conflict with the trajectory predicted by vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) based on environmental sensor data, the conflicting information is discarded) . . .
While Shen discloses not confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device, it does not appear to explicitly disclose not confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle when it is ascertained based on the environmental information that the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is not collision-free with respect to at least one of the first vehicle, another road user and some other object.
Schwindt teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . wherein the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the
second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is not confirmed . . . when it is ascertained based on the environmental information that the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is not collision-free with respect to at least one of the first vehicle, another road user and some other object (see Schwindt at least [0046] “. . . the collision mitigation subsystem 106 determines, based on a characteristic of the at least one object and the travel path, whether a collision between the vehicle and the object is likely (an imminent collision).”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the not confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device of Shen with the confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the not confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle when it is ascertained based on the environmental information that the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is not collision-free with respect to some other object as taught by Schwindt to not confirm the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device when it is ascertained based on the environmental information that the planned trajectory of the second vehicle is not collision-free with respect to at least one of the first vehicle, another road user and some other object. Doing so would enable the non-detection of imminent collisions and therefore prevent the operation of downstream collision mitigation systems when not necessary, as recognized by Schwindt (see Schwindt at least [0047] “. . . in response to determining the likely collision, the collision mitigation subsystem 106 transmits, to the braking system, a mitigation command based on the likely collision.”).
Regarding claim 16, Shen and Schwindt disclose the subject matter of claim 8 as recited in the claim and applied above. Additionally, Shen discloses the subject matter indicated in bold below:
. . . wherein the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is not confirmed by the test device (see Shen at least pg. 13, paragraph 1 ". . . including the motion trajectory predicted by the smart car for the first target, and also includes the motion trajectory that other devices send to the smart car. The movement trajectory of the first target; or, the movement trajectory of the first target includes the movement trajectory of the first target sent by multiple devices to the smart car), cross-comparing each movement trajectory of the first target, To confirm whether there is an unreliable movement trajectory in the movement trajectory of the first target, for example, a jumping movement trajectory or a fake movement trajectory, and the unreliable movement trajectory is discarded . . . the degree of coincidence between two motion trajectories can be calculated, and the motion trajectories whose degree of coincidence with the motion trajectories provided by other devices are all lower than the threshold are discarded, and a safe motion trajectory is retained."; Examiner notes that when the received trajectory of target 1 (i.e., second vehicle) is in conflict with the trajectory predicted by vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) based on environmental sensor data, the conflicting information is discarded) . . .
While Shen discloses not confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device, it does not appear to explicitly disclose not confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle when a latency of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle exceeds the limit value.
Schwindt teaches the subject matter underlined below:
. . . the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle is not confirmed . . . when a latency of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle exceeds a limit value (see Schwindt at least [0046] “. . . the collision mitigation subsystem 106 determines, based on a characteristic of the at least one object and the travel path, whether a collision between the vehicle and the object is likely (an imminent collision). For example, when the directions and velocities of the vehicle and the object indicate that the two will occupy the same location unless evasive action is taken within a time threshold, then a collision is imminent. In some embodiments, the time threshold is set based on a reaction latency of the autonomous driving subsystem 104.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the not confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device of Shen with the confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the not confirming the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle when a latency of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle exceeds the limit value as taught by Schwindt to not confirm the absence of contradiction of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle with the environmental information of the first vehicle by the test device when a latency of the planned trajectory of the second vehicle exceeds the limit value. Doing so would enable the non-detection of imminent collisions and therefore accurately prevent the operation of downstream collision mitigation systems when not necessary, as recognized by Schwindt (see Schwindt at least [0047] “. . . in response to determining the likely collision, the collision mitigation subsystem 106 transmits, to the braking system, a mitigation command based on the likely collision.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues, “The test set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) is used to determine whether patent claims are patent eligible under §101. Substantively, this test has two parts: 1) determine whether the subject matter of the application is directed to a judicial exception to patent eligibility, i.e., is a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an ‘abstract idea,’ and 2) if so, determine whether there is something significantly more to the application's claims such that the claimed subject matter is a patent eligible application of the exception.
“The underlying policy behind the bar against patenting laws of nature or ‘abstract ideas’ stems from striking a balance between 1) providing a monopoly to innovators to encourage further innovation and disclosure of that innovation and 2) the inhibition of innovation through the issuance of patents on fundamental building blocks of innovation. The Supreme Court explained this policy behind excluding ‘abstract ideas’ from patentable subject matter by stating that ‘the concern that drives this exclusionary principle [is] one of preemption.’ Accordingly, the court determined that patents on the judicially excepted subject matters should not stand because they unduly preempt further innovation that may stand on the fundamental concepts embodied in the judicially excepted areas.
“Additionally, the USPTO issued the ‘2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Guidance’ (‘2019 Revised Guidance’). In the 2019 Revised Guidance, the following groupings were identified as being abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts (e.g., mathematical formulas or equations); (2) certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., hedging, insurance, business relations, managing personal behavior, and following rules); and (3) mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
“Further, the 2019 Revised Guidance explained that if a claim was found to recite a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea), then an evaluation should be made as to whether the judicial exception is ‘integrated into a practical application of the exception.’ Whether the exception is so integrated may depend upon whether a claim imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Additional elements recited in the claim are identified as being beyond the exception and are evaluated individually and in combination. Some exemplary considerations that are indicative an additional element (or combination of elements) has integrated the exception into a practical application include: (1) an improvement to the functioning of the computer; (2) the additional element implements the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine; (3) the additional element effects a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing; and (4) the additional element applies or uses the exception in a meaningful way beyond using it in a particular technological environment.
“Finally, the Office has issued guidance consisting of example claims and explanations of why (or why not) these claims contain patentable subject matter.
“With this context in mind, the Applicant respectfully submits that the claims as amended are not abstract for the reasons discussed below.
“Even if the claims recite an exception, this exception is integrated into a practical application because the claims include additional elements that are an improvement to technology
“The claims have been amended to recite that a signal for executing a planned trajectory of the first vehicle is formed and used to control a vehicle device. The control signal is configured so, for example, to allow the device to control the trajectory of the vehicle.
“The claimed approach provides meaningful technical advantages in the technical field of vehicle planning and control because the claimed approach is implemented in real time, is automated, and directly controls a vehicle device to, for example, follow an optimal trajectory that avoids collisions and increase the safety of the vehicle and its occupants in meaningful ways.
“The present claims are patent eligible for some of the same reasons enunciated by the office in Example 45 of the USPTO Examples. The subject matter of Example 45 involves a controller for an injection mold. Several claims are described in Example 45 including example claims 1 and 2:
Claim 1. A controller for an injection molding apparatus having a mold defining a cavity for receiving uncured polyurethane that is heated to form a molded article during a cycle of operation of the apparatus, the controller configured to:
(a) repeatedly obtain measurements of the temperature of a mold;
(b) calculate an extent of curing completion of polyurethane in the mold using the obtained temperatures and the Arrhenius equation; and
(c) determine the extent that the polyurethane is cured as a percentage.
Claim 2. The controller of claim 1, which is further configured to:
(d) send control signals to the injection molding apparatus once the polyurethane has reached a target percentage, the control signals instructing the apparatus to open the mold and eject the molded polyurethane from the mold.
“While the subject matter of example claim 1 was held by the USPTO to be ineligible for patent protection under §101, example claim 2 was held to be eligible because it integrated any exception into a practical application.
“More specifically, the USPTO stated that limitation (d) of example claim 2 (involving the control signals) ‘does not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it employs the information provided by the judicial exceptions (the calculated percentage of the extent of cure) to control the operation of the injection molding apparatus.’ Furthermore, ‘the claimed controller avoids the technical problems associated with undercure and overcure, which would otherwise negatively affect the cured polyurethane's strength and wear performance.’ Additionally, ‘using the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action and control the injection molding apparatus in a particular way is an “other meaningful limitation” that integrates the judicial exception into the overall control scheme and accordingly practically applies the exception.’
“As mentioned, the present claims have been amended to recite the control of a vehicle device by a control signal. As with the second claim of Example 45, these features are meaningful limitations and integrate any exception into a practical application, in the present case, by providing technical improvements in the area of vehicle planning and control by significantly enhancing vehicle safety.
“For all these reasons, these additional claim features integrate any exception into a practical application.
“Consequently and for the reasons discussed above, the § 101 rejections are obviated and the claims are allowable,” (from remarks pg. 8-11).
As to Point (A), the examiner agrees. Applicant appears to argue that the claims neither recite an abstract idea nor fail to provide a practical application and therefore are allowable under 35 U.S.C. §101. Under the two prong test set forth for evaluating claims under 35 U.S.C. §101, the amended claim limitations would be allowable at Step 2A, since the amended claims provide a practical application for the abstract ideas.
(B) Applicant argues, “As mentioned, the claims are amended to recite testing the planned trajectory of the second vehicle for absence of contradiction with environmental information where the environmental information describes an environmental model of the first vehicle, and the environmental information is obtained from a fusion of sensor information from the at least one sensor of the first vehicle. The cited references do not teach or suggest these features.
“Shen states that ‘[i]n a first aspect, the present application provides a method for predicting a motion trajectory. The method is applied to a smart car and includes: obtaining N motion trajectories of a first target, the N motion trajectories are provided by N devices, and N is a positive integer; According to the types of the N motion trajectories, the applied motion trajectory of the first target is determined, where the applied motion trajectory of the first target is used for driving decision-making of the smart car. The applied motion trajectory accuracy of the first target obtained by the above method is higher.’ Shen also notes N is greater than 1. Thus, with Shen multiple trajectories are required to be compared to obtain his results and this is conformed later in Shen when he notes that ‘[t]o confirm whether there is an unreliable movement trajectory in the movement trajectory of the first target, for example, a jumping movement trajectory or a fake movement trajectory, and the unreliable movement trajectory is discarded. This application does not limit the cross-comparison method. For example, the degree of coincidence between two motion trajectories can be calculated, and the motion trajectories whose degree of coincidence with the motion trajectories provided by other devices are all lower than the threshold are discarded, and a safe motion trajectory is retained.’ Comparing different trajectories in Shen is different from what is being claimed (i.e., testing the planned trajectory of a second vehicle for absence of contradiction with environmental information where the environmental information describes an environmental model of the first vehicle, and the environmental information is obtained from a fusion of sensor information from the at least one sensor of the first vehicle).
“Schwindt is silent as to these features.
“Since at least one claim feature is not taught or suggested by the cited references, it is respectfully submitted that the claims are allowable.
“There would also be no reason to modify the proposed combination to include the claimed subject matter. As mentioned above, Shen operates by comparing different trajectories and not as claimed. Any modification of Shen to include the claimed subject matter would change the operating principles of Shen and would necessarily rely on the Applicant's own teachings as providing the motivation and this would amount to an improper hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. The claims are allowable for these additional reasons,” (from remarks pg. 11-12).
As to Point (B), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to argue that the prior art fail to disclose or otherwise suggest the recite testing the planned trajectory of the second vehicle for absence of contradiction with environmental information where the environmental information describes an environmental model of the first vehicle, and the environmental information is obtained from a fusion of sensor information from the at least one sensor of the first vehicle. Further, Applicant appears to argue that the combination of any reference with the primary reference Shen to teach these features would necessarily rely upon improper hindsight reasoning. However, Shen does disclose the claim limitations argued. MPEP §2111 discusses interpretation of the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination. Shen’s comparison of planned trajectories is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, encompassing of the claimed “testing the planned trajectory of a second vehicle for absence of contradiction with environmental information.” The environmental information of Shen describes an environmental model of the first vehicle, and the environmental information is obtained from a fusion of sensor information from the at least one sensor of the first vehicle (see Shen at least pg. 8, paragraph 3 “The sensor system 101 is used to detect and perceive targets in the surrounding environment of the smart car, and obtain information about targets in the surrounding environment in real time. The sensor system 101 may include various hardware sensors or software sensors. For example, the sensor system 101 may include any one or more of a camera, a laser radar, a millimeter wave radar, an ultrasonic radar, and an infrared sensor. Each type of sensor in the sensor system 101 may include one or more [(i.e., fused sensor data)].”; pg. 9, paragraph 6 "Vehicle A is a car that has both communication capabilities and perception and calculation capabilities. The perception area of vehicle A (i.e., first vehicle) includes target 1 (i.e., second vehicle), target 2, target 3, and the vehicle A. Real-time information of target 1, target 2, and target 3 in the sensing area can be obtained through the self-loaded sensor system, which includes real-time position information, speed information, orientation information, type information, feature information, etc. of the target[.]"). Since Shen discloses the argued claim limitations without combination of another reference, the further argument regarding the combination of references to teach the argued claim limitations is rendered moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ali et al. (Ali, M. A., & Mailah, M. (2019). Path planning and control of mobile robot in road environments using sensor fusion and active force control. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 68(3), 2176-2195.) discloses sensor fusion for vehicle path planning.
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 TABITHA KRESS whose telephone number is (703) 756-1763. The examiner can normally be reached MTWR 06:30-16:30 CST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/TABITHA KRESS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/24/26
Prosecution Insights