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. This is the First Office Action on the Merits.
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 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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “monitoring system” and “control module” in claim 1, and “planning module” in claims 1, 10, and 17. The “control module” and “planning module” are interpreted as software running on a processor, controller, or structural equivalent per paragraph(s) 44 and figure 1 of the specification, and “the monitoring system” is interpreted as one or more sensors per paragraph(s) 41 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-12, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 2022/0355799 to Kawakita et al.
As per claim 1, Kawakita discloses a system for controlling a vehicle (Kawakita; At least the abstract), comprising:
a 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 (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 27) 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 (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 31 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 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).
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 claims 10-12 and 17-18, Kawakita discloses the method and processing device of claims 1-3 (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 4-6). Therefore, claims 10-12 and 17-18 are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claims 1-3.
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) 4-7, 13-15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakita in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0115758 to Kassar et al.
As per claim 4, Kawakita discloses multiple velocity profiles (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 45 and 48), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the longitudinal velocity profile is calculated based on a plurality of constituent velocity profiles.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Kassar (Kassar; At least paragraph(s) 5 and 7). 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 5, Kawakita discloses wherein the plurality of constituent velocity profiles includes an insertion velocity profile and a curve velocity profile (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 31 and 32; the trajectory defines the velocities at the insertion into the lane change and during the curves).
As per claim 6, Kawakita discloses wherein the plurality of constituent velocity profiles include a headway velocity 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 longitudinal velocity profile is calculated by blending the plurality of constituent velocity profiles.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Kassar (Kassar; At least paragraph(s) 5 and 7). 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 claims 13-15 and 19-20, Kawakita, in view of Kassar, discloses the method and processing device of claims 4-7 (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 4-6). Therefore, claims 13-15 and 19-20are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claims 4-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakita, in view of Kassar as applied to claim 7 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 each constituent velocity profile of the plurality of constituent velocity profiles is 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 9, Kawakita discloses determining multiple velocity profiles (Kawakita; At least paragraph(s) 45 and 48, and figure 2), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the blending includes selecting a constituent velocity profile having a lowest velocity value, or combining the plurality of constituent velocity profiles using a matrix technique.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Singh (Singh; At least paragraph(s) 5 and 7). 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 using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Using the minimum velocity from the different velocity profiles would ensure the safest control.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
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