Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claim 1 is currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority application No. RU2021128897 filed on 10/04/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, the phrase “in a assessment” should read “in an assessment”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 is illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1:
The limitation “calculating kinematic stability of the future movement trajectory of the HAV by finding a deviation from the desired movement trajectory and imposing a resulting trajectory for each hypothesis about the HAV position” is unclear and indistinct.
It is unclear what is meant by kinematic stability in the context of the claim.
The term “the desired movement trajectory” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear how the desired movement trajectory is determined. Further, it is unclear if the “deviation” refers to a future, predicted trajectory, a current, measured trajectory, or something else.
Further, it is unclear what is meant by “imposing a resulting trajectory”.
The limitation is so unclear that it cannot be meaningfully interpreted.
As best understood by the Examiner, the limitation appears to be comparing a trajectory to a desired trajectory to determine a “kinematic stability”.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner. Any claim not explicitly rejected under this heading is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kibalov et al. (Safe Speed Control and Collision Probability Estimation Under Ego-Pose Uncertainty for Autonomous Vehicle) in view of Qin et al. (US 2018/0300567).
Regarding claim 1:
Kibalov teaches a method for adaptive control of a highly automated vehicles (HAV) driving characteristics, depending on the level of uncertainty in a assessment of environmental situation (see at least abstract, Introduction), wherein the method comprising the following steps:
Gathering sensor data (see at least Introduction, sensor measurements, III, Sensory data)
calculating a current status of the HAV by the collected signals (II, III, Xt );
forming using collected data on the onboard computer a set of hypotheses about the HAV position (probability distribution of vehicle pose, see at least II);
forming a planned path of travel of the HAV, wherein the planned path presented in the form of a sequence of points on a map, forming a desired movement trajectory (reference trajectory T, see at least II);
forming a digital map of the obstacles (occupancy grid map, see at least II, Fig. 1);
determining a safe movement speed using collected data, wherein a future movement trajectory of HAV is determined (Vs, II, future trajectory, III);
calculating kinematic stability of the future movement trajectory of the HAV by finding a deviation from the desired movement trajectory and imposing a resulting trajectory for each hypothesis about the HAV position (as best understood by the Examiner, Kibalov teaches variations in new pose estimation relative to reference trajectory, see at least III, Fig. 1);
forming a set of hypotheses about future movement trajectories (spatial distribution of future trajectories, see Fig. 1a, III);
checking each predicted trajectory for potential collisions by comparison with the digital map of obstacles (avoiding collision with static obstacles, See at least Fig. 1b, III-IV);
estimating the probability of collision on the basis of future trajectories for the current speed value of the HAV (estimating collision probability, see at least III);
choosing safe speed as the maximum allowable speed for which the probability of collision the forecast period does not exceed a predetermined threshold value (safe speed estimation IV);
sending determined safe speed value to a speed control unit of the HAV, which sends the control signals to the traction motor and braking system ensuring movement at safe speed (see at least Fig. 3).
Kibalov is silent as to the particular sensors on the autonomous vehicle.
However, the Examiner notes that wheel encoders, steering position sensors, and cameras are well-known sensors for determining vehicle state data.
For example, Qin teaches a system and method of determining a state of a vehicle in an environment, including teaching common sensor types on a vehicle, including the claimed sensor types (see at least ¶0044-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the autonomous vehicle control system and method as taught by Kibalov with the well-known sensor suite including wheel speed sensors, cameras, and wheel angle sensors as taught by Qin in order to provide necessary data for determining a state of a vehicle and the environment in order to safely control the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619