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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 18 recites the limitation “the moving body to travel based on the trajectory plan after the the trajectory plan is generated” where it appears the term “the” is unnecessarily repeated. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 first plan generation unit that generates” in claim 1 wherein the first plan generator unit is interpreted to be at least a CPU, ECU, or other processor unit as supported by specification pages 5-6 lines 25-23
“a second plan generation unit that generates” in claim 1 wherein the second plan generator unit is interpreted to be at least a CPU, ECU, or other processor unit as supported by specification pages 5-6 lines 25-23
“a travelling control unit that causes the moving body to travel” in claim 1 wherein the travelling unit is interpreted to be at least a CPU, ECU, or other processor unit as supported by specification pages 5-6 lines 25-23
“the second plan generation unit that generates” in claim 1 wherein the second plan generator unit is interpreted to be at least a CPU, ECU, or other processor unit as supported by specification pages 5-6 lines 25-23
“the second plan generation unit calculates a maximum speed” in claim 2 wherein the second plan generator unit is interpreted to be at least a CPU, ECU, or other processor unit as supported by specification pages 5-6 lines 25-23
“the second plan generation unit generates the speed plan” in claim 2 wherein the second plan generator unit is interpreted to be at least a CPU, ECU, or other processor unit as supported by specification pages 5-6 lines 25-23
“the traveling control unit causes the moving body” in claim 3 wherein the travelling unit is interpreted to be at least a CPU, ECU, or other processor unit as supported by specification pages 5-6 lines 25-23
“the first plan generation unit that generates” in claim 4 wherein the first plan generator unit is interpreted to be at least a CPU, ECU, or other processor unit as supported by specification pages 5-6 lines 25-23
“the second plan generation unit generates the speed plan” in claim 6 wherein the second plan generator unit is interpreted to be at least a CPU, ECU, or other processor unit as supported by specification pages 5-6 lines 25-23
“the traveling control unit causes the moving body” in claim 7 wherein the travelling unit is interpreted to be at least a CPU, ECU, or other processor unit as supported by specification pages 5-6 lines 25-23
“the first plan generation unit that generates” in claim 8 wherein the first plan generator unit is interpreted to be at least a CPU, ECU, or other processor unit as supported by specification pages 5-6 lines 25-23
“the second plan generation unit generates the speed plan” in claim 10 wherein the second plan generator unit is interpreted to be at least a CPU, ECU, or other processor unit as supported by specification pages 5-6 lines 25-23
“the first plan generation unit that generates” in claim 11 wherein the first plan generator unit is interpreted to be at least a CPU, ECU, or other processor unit as supported by specification pages 5-6 lines 25-23
“the second plan generation unit generates the speed plan” in claim 13 wherein the second plan generator unit is interpreted to be at least a CPU, ECU, or other processor unit as supported by specification pages 5-6 lines 25-23
“the second plan generation unit generates the speed plan” in claim 15 wherein the second plan generator unit is interpreted to be at least a CPU, ECU, or other processor unit as supported by specification pages 5-6 lines 25-23
“the second plan generation unit generates the speed plan” in claim 16 wherein the second plan generator unit is interpreted to be at least a CPU, ECU, or other processor unit as supported by specification pages 5-6 lines 25-23
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.
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 from 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 from being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2019/0155294 A1 hereinafter “Inoue”).
Regarding claim 1 Inoue discloses:
A control apparatus for a moving body, the control apparatus comprising: a first plan generation unit that generates a trajectory plan that is a plan indicating a lateral position of the moving body at each point when the moving body is caused to travel along a predetermined route; (Inoue [0060-0061] [0068] wherein the vehicle includes a fist generation unit that determines the trajectory request and sends it to a second controller for planning a trajectory on a path) a second plan generation unit that generates a speed plan that is a plan indicating a traveling speed of the moving body at each point when the moving body is caused to travel along the route; (Inoue [0043-0045] [0047] wherein the target generation unit determines the route, the speed the vehicle should follow on the path, and intervals for the path to monitor the trajectory and speed control) and a traveling control unit that causes the moving body to travel based on both the trajectory plan and the speed plan, (Inoue [0057] [0048] wherein the planning controllers send information to the travel controller to operate the vehicle) wherein the second plan generation unit generates the speed plan as a plan for causing the moving body to travel based on the trajectory plan after the first plan generation unit generates the trajectory plan. (Inoue [0043-0045] [0047] wherein the target generation unit determines the route, the speed the vehicle should follow on the path, and intervals for the path to monitor the trajectory and speed control).
Regarding claim 2 Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Inoue further discloses:
The control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the second plan generation unit calculates a maximum speed allowed at each point along the route using the trajectory plan,
and generates the speed plan so that the traveling speed of the moving body at each point along the route does not exceed the maximum speed. (Inoue [0045] [0066] wherein the vehicle determines a speed plan with specific target speeds to follow with an acceleration pattern to match the planned speed i.e. not exceed the maximum allowed).
Regarding claim 3 Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 and Inoue further discloses:
The control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein: the traveling control unit causes the moving body to travel while performing feedback control so that a deviation between the traveling speed indicated in the speed plan and an actual traveling speed is reduced. (Inoue [0070-0072] wherein the vehicle determines feedback controls for the vehicle based on autonomous driving and feedback settings to stabilize and follow the travel path).
Regarding claim 7 Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Inoue further discloses:
The control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the traveling control unit causes the moving body to travel while performing feedback control so that a deviation between the traveling speed indicated in the speed plan and an actual traveling speed is reduced. (Inoue [0070-0072] wherein the vehicle determines feedback controls for the vehicle based on autonomous driving and feedback settings to stabilize and follow the travel path).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 4, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Taguchi et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2010/0211235 A1 hereinafter “Taguchi”.
Regarding claim 4 Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 3 but Inoue does not appear to disclose:
… wherein: the first plan generation unit generates the trajectory plan so that the moving body travels on a curved road along an out-in-out trajectory.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Taguchi discloses:
“wherein: the first plan generation unit generates the trajectory plan so that the moving body travels on a curved road along an out-in-out trajectory.” (Taguchi [0105-0106] [0109] wherein the vehicle determines automatic driving with optimized out-in-out trajectories).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the feedback control of Taguchi with the system of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide for adjusted vehicle control amounts to reduce errors, and improve precise vehicle controls (Taguchi [0025]).
Regarding claim 8 Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 7 but Inoue does not appear to disclose:
… wherein: the first plan generation unit generates the trajectory plan so that the moving body travels on a curved road along an out-in-out trajectory.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Taguchi discloses:
“wherein: the first plan generation unit generates the trajectory plan so that the moving body travels on a curved road along an out-in-out trajectory.” (Taguchi [0105-0106] [0109] wherein the vehicle determines automatic driving with optimized out-in-out trajectories).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the feedback control of Taguchi with the system of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide for adjusted vehicle control amounts to reduce errors, and improve precise vehicle controls (Taguchi [0025]).
Regarding claim 11 Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 but Inoue does not appear to disclose:
… wherein: the first plan generation unit generates the trajectory plan so that the moving body travels on a curved road along an out-in-out trajectory.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Taguchi discloses:
“wherein: the first plan generation unit generates the trajectory plan so that the moving body travels on a curved road along an out-in-out trajectory.” (Taguchi [0105-0106] [0109] wherein the vehicle determines automatic driving with optimized out-in-out trajectories).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the feedback control of Taguchi with the system of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide for adjusted vehicle control amounts to reduce errors, and improve precise vehicle controls (Taguchi [0025]).
Claims 5, 9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Taguchi as applied to claims 1, 4, 8, and 11 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2019/0375403 A1 hereinafter “Hu”).
Regarding claim 5 Inoue in view of Taguchi discloses all of the limitations of claim 4 but Inoue does not appear to disclose:
… wherein: a frequency by which the second plan generation unit updates the speed plan is higher than a frequency by which the first plan generation unit updates the trajectory plan.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Hu discloses:
“wherein: a frequency by which the second plan generation unit updates the speed plan is higher than a frequency by which the first plan generation unit updates the trajectory plan.” (Hu [0061] wherein the vehicle updates the speed trajectory profile iteratively without changing the overall trajectory, updating for accuracy based on sensor information).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the frequency updates of Hu with the system of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide accurate and improved speed controls for the vehicle during operation (Hu [0061]).
Regarding claim 9 Inoue in view of Taguchi discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 but Inoue does not appear to disclose:
… wherein: a frequency by which the second plan generation unit updates the speed plan is higher than a frequency by which the first plan generation unit updates the trajectory plan.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Hu discloses:
“wherein: a frequency by which the second plan generation unit updates the speed plan is higher than a frequency by which the first plan generation unit updates the trajectory plan.” (Hu [0061] wherein the vehicle updates the speed trajectory profile iteratively without changing the overall trajectory, updating for accuracy based on sensor information).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the frequency updates of Hu with the system of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide accurate and improved speed controls for the vehicle during operation (Hu [0061]).
Regarding claim 12 Inoue in view of Taguchi discloses all of the limitations of claim 11 but Inoue does not appear to disclose:
… wherein: a frequency by which the second plan generation unit updates the speed plan is higher than a frequency by which the first plan generation unit updates the trajectory plan.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Hu discloses:
“wherein: a frequency by which the second plan generation unit updates the speed plan is higher than a frequency by which the first plan generation unit updates the trajectory plan.” (Hu [0061] wherein the vehicle updates the speed trajectory profile iteratively without changing the overall trajectory, updating for accuracy based on sensor information).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the frequency updates of Hu with the system of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide accurate and improved speed controls for the vehicle during operation (Hu [0061]).
Regarding claim 14 Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 but Inoue does not appear to disclose:
… wherein: a frequency by which the second plan generation unit updates the speed plan is higher than a frequency by which the first plan generation unit updates the trajectory plan.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Hu discloses:
“wherein: a frequency by which the second plan generation unit updates the speed plan is higher than a frequency by which the first plan generation unit updates the trajectory plan.” (Hu [0061] wherein the vehicle updates the speed trajectory profile iteratively without changing the overall trajectory, updating for accuracy based on sensor information).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the frequency updates of Hu with the system of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide accurate and improved speed controls for the vehicle during operation (Hu [0061]).
Claims 6, 10, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Taguchi and Hu as applied to claims 1, 5, 12, and 14 above, and further in view of Mizrachi et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2020/0282999 A1 hereinafter “Mizrachi”)
Regarding claim 6 Inoue in view of Taguchi and Hu discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 but Inoue does not appear to disclose:
… wherein: the second plan generation unit generates the speed plan using an equation of motion in which a braking/driving force is normalized by a weight of the moving body.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Mizrachi discloses:
“wherein: the second plan generation unit generates the speed plan using an equation of motion in which a braking/driving force is normalized by a weight of the moving body.” (Mizrachi [1417-1418] wherein the vehicle determines normalized excitations using the road segment, climate, speed, weight of the vehicle, and other factors).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the weight of the vehicle to control the vehicle plan of Mizrachi with the system of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the autonomous control of the vehicle using highly accurate information (Mizrachi [0013]).
Regarding claim 10 Inoue in view of Taguchi and Hu disclose all of the limitations of claim 9 but Inoue does not appear to disclose:
… wherein: the second plan generation unit generates the speed plan using an equation of motion in which a braking/driving force is normalized by a weight of the moving body.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Mizrachi discloses:
“wherein: the second plan generation unit generates the speed plan using an equation of motion in which a braking/driving force is normalized by a weight of the moving body.” (Mizrachi [1417-1418] wherein the vehicle determines normalized excitations using the road segment, climate, speed, weight of the vehicle, and other factors).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the weight of the vehicle to control the vehicle plan of Mizrachi with the system of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the autonomous control of the vehicle using highly accurate information (Mizrachi [0013]).
Regarding claim 13 Inoue in view of Taguchi and Hu discloses all of the limitations of claim 12 but Inoue does not appear to disclose:
… wherein: the second plan generation unit generates the speed plan using an equation of motion in which a braking/driving force is normalized by a weight of the moving body.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Mizrachi discloses:
“wherein: the second plan generation unit generates the speed plan using an equation of motion in which a braking/driving force is normalized by a weight of the moving body.” (Mizrachi [1417-1418] wherein the vehicle determines normalized excitations using the road segment, climate, speed, weight of the vehicle, and other factors).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the weight of the vehicle to control the vehicle plan of Mizrachi with the system of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the autonomous control of the vehicle using highly accurate information (Mizrachi [0013]).
Regarding claim 15 Inoue in view of Taguchi and Hu disclose all of the limitations of claim 14 but Inoue does not appear to disclose:
… wherein: the second plan generation unit generates the speed plan using an equation of motion in which a braking/driving force is normalized by a weight of the moving body.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Mizrachi discloses:
“wherein: the second plan generation unit generates the speed plan using an equation of motion in which a braking/driving force is normalized by a weight of the moving body.” (Mizrachi [1417-1418] wherein the vehicle determines normalized excitations using the road segment, climate, speed, weight of the vehicle, and other factors).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the weight of the vehicle to control the vehicle plan of Mizrachi with the system of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the autonomous control of the vehicle using highly accurate information (Mizrachi [0013]).
Regarding claim 16 Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 16 but Inoue does not appear to further disclose:
… wherein: the second plan generation unit generates the speed plan using an equation of motion in which a braking/driving force is normalized by a weight of the moving body.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Mizrachi discloses:
“wherein: the second plan generation unit generates the speed plan using an equation of motion in which a braking/driving force is normalized by a weight of the moving body.” (Mizrachi [1417-1418] wherein the vehicle determines normalized excitations using the road segment, climate, speed, weight of the vehicle, and other factors).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the weight of the vehicle to control the vehicle plan of Mizrachi with the system of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the autonomous control of the vehicle using highly accurate information (Mizrachi [0013]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Mizrachi.
Regarding claim 17 Inoue discloses:
A … computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a program for a control apparatus of a moving body, the program causing the control apparatus to perform: (Inoue [0031] wherein processors and memory control the ECU and vehicle operations) a first plan generating process of generating a trajectory plan that is a plan indicating a lateral position of the moving body at each point when the moving body is caused to travel along a predetermined route; (Inoue [0060-0061] [0068] wherein the vehicle includes a fist generation unit that determines the trajectory request and sends it to a second controller for planning a trajectory on a path) a second plan generating process of generating speed plan that is a plan indicating a traveling speed of the moving body at each point when the moving body is caused to travel along the route; (Inoue [0043-0045] [0047] wherein the target generation unit determines the route, the speed the vehicle should follow on the path, and intervals for the path to monitor the trajectory and speed control) and a traveling control process of causing the moving body to travel based on both the trajectory plan and the speed plan, (Inoue [0057] [0048] wherein the planning controllers send information to the travel controller to operate the vehicle) wherein the second plan generating process comprises a process of generating the speed plan as a plan for causing the moving body to travel based on the trajectory plan after the trajectory plan is generated as the first plan generating process. (Inoue [0043-0045] [0047] wherein the target generation unit determines the route, the speed the vehicle should follow on the path, and intervals for the path to monitor the trajectory and speed control).
Inoue does not appear to explicitly disclose:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Mizrachi discloses:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (Mizrachi [0056] [0078] wherein a non-transitory program is used to control aspects of the vehicle control system)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the non-transitory medium of Mizrachi with the system of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide various means for storing and controlling the vehicle systems (Mizrachi [0056] [0078]).
Regarding claim 18 Inoue discloses:
A control apparatus for a moving body, the control apparatus comprising: a processor; a … computer-readable storage medium; a set of computer-executable instructions stored on the computer-readable storage medium that, when read and executed by the processor, cause the processor to implement: (Inoue [0031] wherein processors and memory control the ECU and vehicle operations) generating a trajectory plan that is a plan indicating a lateral position of the moving body at each point when the moving body is caused to travel along a predetermined route; (Inoue [0060-0061] [0068] wherein the vehicle includes a fist generation unit that determines the trajectory request and sends it to a second controller for planning a trajectory on a path) generating a speed plan that is a plan indicating a traveling speed of the moving body at each point when the moving body is caused to travel along the route; (Inoue [0043-0045] [0047] wherein the target generation unit determines the route, the speed the vehicle should follow on the path, and intervals for the path to monitor the trajectory and speed control) and causing the moving body to travel based on both the trajectory plan and the speed plan, (Inoue [0057] [0048] wherein the planning controllers send information to the travel controller to operate the vehicle) wherein generating the speed plan comprises generating the speed plan as a plan for causing the moving body to travel based on the trajectory plan after the the trajectory plan is generated. (Inoue [0043-0045] [0047] wherein the target generation unit determines the route, the speed the vehicle should follow on the path, and intervals for the path to monitor the trajectory and speed control).
Inoue does not appear to explicitly disclose:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Mizrachi discloses:
“a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (Mizrachi [0056] [0078] wherein a non-transitory program is used to control aspects of the vehicle control system)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the non-transitory medium of Mizrachi with the system of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide various means for storing and controlling the vehicle systems (Mizrachi [0056] [0078]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP2021099541 A discloses a cornering trajectory system for an autonomous vehicle
US 2011/0218724 A1 discloses a subject vehicle travelling on a curve and how to best exit the curve
US 2019/0346851 A1 discloses a system for optimizing motion of an autonomous vehicle, tracking the speed with a constraint solver for optimization
US 2021/0035442 A1 discloses a method for sending information to a road user based on autonomous vehicle operations
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle T Johnson whose telephone number is (303)297-4339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 MT.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/KYLE T JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3656