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 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.
Introduction
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0355799 to Kawakita et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0115758 to Kassar et al.
As per claim 1, Kawakita discloses a system for controlling a vehicle (Kawakita; At least the abstract), comprising:
a monitoring system including a sensor, the monitoring system configured to detect a lane change feature during operation of a vehicle, the lane change feature including at least one of a lane addition feature and a lane split feature (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 28 and 32, and figure 2);
a planning module including a processor (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 27 and 34) configured to, based on detection of the lane change feature:
acquire a trajectory for the vehicle to perform a lane change maneuver at the lane change feature within a time window, the time window selected based on a current velocity of the vehicle, the trajectory including a first segment extending longitudinally from a location of the vehicle, and a second segment extending longitudinally from the first segment (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 31, 32, and 37; the system acquires a trajectory for performing a lane change maneuver within a set distance, which is equivalent since distance is time multiplied by velocity. The system also determines a distance limit, again equivalent to a time window accounting for velocity, for performing the lane change); and
calculate a longitudinal velocity profile prescribing a sequence of longitudinal velocities selected so that when the vehicle follows the acquired trajectory, the lane change maneuver is performed in a smooth manner within the time window (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 31); and
a control module including a processor configured to control movement of the vehicle according to the acquired trajectory and execute the lane change maneuver according to the sequence of longitudinal velocities (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 27).
Kawakita discloses determining velocity profile(s) for controlling the vehicle during a lane change feature (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 45 and 48), but does not explicitly disclose determine a first constituent velocity profile for the first segment, the first constituent velocity profile determined so that a first target velocity is reached at the first segment; determine a second constituent velocity profile for the second segment, the second constituent velocity profile determined so that a second target velocity is reached at the second segment, wherein the second constituent velocity profile is determined based on the second target velocity and is determined independent of the first target velocity and the first constituent velocity profile; wherein the longitudinal velocity profile is calculated by blending the first constituent velocity profile with the second constituent velocity profile;
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Kassar (Kassar; At least paragraph(s) 5, 7, 27, and 31, and figures 3B and 3C). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Kassar into the invention of Kawakita with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Determining multiple velocity profiles based on different obstacles or constraints would allow the autonomous vehicle to handle complex scenarios, as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 1 of Kassar, while creating a smooth velocity profile.
As per claim 2, Kawakita discloses wherein the longitudinal velocity profile is calculated so that a lateral acceleration is within a selected threshold (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 53).
As per claim 3, Kawakita discloses wherein the lane change feature includes the lane addition feature at a first location and the lane split feature at a second location, and the longitudinal velocity profile is calculated based on a distance between the first location and the second location, and the current velocity (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 32 and 48, and figure 2).
As per claim 4, Kawakita discloses multiple trajectory segments (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 45 and 48), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first segment extends from the location of the vehicle to the lane addition feature, and the second segment extends from the location of the vehicle to the lane split feature.
However, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimal segments. Determining the various segments based on lane features, map features, obstacles, etc. would involve only routine testing and be within the skill of one in the art.
As per claim 5, Kawakita discloses multiple trajectory segments (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 45 and 48), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the longitudinal velocity profile is calculated by blending the first constituent velocity profile and the second constituent velocity profile with a third velocity profile.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Kassar (Kassar; At least paragraph(s) 7 and 31). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Kassar into the invention of Kawakita with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Determining multiple velocity profiles based on different obstacles or constraints would allow the autonomous vehicle to handle complex scenarios, as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 1 of Kassar, while creating a smooth velocity profile.
As per claim 6, Kawakita discloses wherein the third velocity profile includes a headway velocity profile selected to maintain a distance between the vehicle and another vehicle moving ahead of the vehicle (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 45 and 48; the trajectory and velocities are adjusted based on a forward vehicle).
As per claim 7, Kawakita discloses multiple velocity profiles (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 45 and 48), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the third velocity profile is associated with a third target velocity based on a curvature of a road segment after the lane split feature.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Kassar (Kassar; At least paragraph(s) 28; the initial velocity profile, or any velocity profile, is based at least on turn executions and physical limits of the vehicle). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Kassar into the invention of Kawakita with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Determining multiple velocity profiles based on different obstacles or constraints and blending them together would allow the autonomous vehicle to handle complex scenarios, as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 1 of Kassar, while creating a smooth velocity profile.
As per claim 9, Kawakita discloses multiple velocity profiles (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 45 and 48), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the blending includes selecting a constituent velocity profile having a lowest velocity value, or combining the first constituent velocity profile and the second constituent velocity profile using a matrix technique.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Kassar (Kassar; At least paragraph(s) 31). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Kassar into the invention of Kawakita with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Determining multiple velocity profiles based on different obstacles or constraints and blending them together would allow the autonomous vehicle to handle complex scenarios, as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 1 of Kassar, while creating a smooth velocity profile. Using the lowest velocity value would provide the safest overall velocity profile.
As per claims 10-15 and 17-20, Kawakita discloses the method and processing device of claims 1-7 and 9 (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 4-6). Therefore, claims 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claims 1-7 and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakita, in view of Kassar as applied to claims 1 and 15, and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0001926 to Singh et al.
As per claim 8, Kawakita discloses determining multiple velocity profiles (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 45 and 48, and figure 2), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first constituent velocity profile and the second constituent velocity profile are each expressed as a third order polynomial.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Singh (Singh; At least paragraph(s) 47). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Singh into the invention of Kawakita with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Using various polynomials to represent changes in a vehicle’s parameter, such as velocity, position, etc., is known in the art and would be obvious to use, as demonstrated by paragraph(s) 47 of Singh, paragraph(s) 25 of Kassar, or paragraph(s) 61 of the specification.
As per claim 16, Kawakita discloses the method of (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 5) of claims 8 and 9. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claims 8 and 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 04/10/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 04/10/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kawakita in view of Kassar have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant's arguments that Kassar does not teach blending velocity profiles, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that Kassar does not teach the limitations because Kassar teaches the derate intervals (velocity profiles) being applied to an initial speed profile. However, Kassar teaches combining each individual derate interval with the initial speed profile, as seen in at least figures 3B and 3C, therefore, Kassar teaches blending the at least two derate intervals. The claims, as written, do not prohibit the first and second velocity profiles from being blended with a third, initial velocity profile. Thus, Kawakita, in view of Kassar, teach the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights