DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Inventorship
2. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Although the specification discusses some automated driving; Each of Claims 1-9 directed to a computer sending data, generating data, comparing data and generating more data without actually controlling a vehicle which recites an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 8 and 9 are similar.
Taking independent claim 1 as an exemplary claim, claim 1 recites a method for safeguarding a driving behavior of a vehicle by providing an emergency stop trajectory for the vehicle, comprising the following steps:
providing a main trajectory of the vehicle, wherein the main trajectory describes a movement path of a regular movement of the vehicle [observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process];
generating at least one preliminary trajectory based on the main trajectory, wherein the at least one preliminary trajectory describes a stopping process of the vehicle [evaluation or judgement, which is grouped as a mental process];
checking the at least one generated preliminary trajectory using at least one criterion to evaluate whether the generated preliminary trajectory is suitable as the emergency stop trajectory for an emergency stop maneuver of the vehicle, wherein the at least one criterion is specific to: (i) driving safety during the emergency stop maneuver, and/or (ii) drivability of the emergency stop maneuver by the vehicle, wherein the emergency stop trajectory describes a movement path for the emergency stop maneuver of the vehicle (evaluation or judgement, which is grouped as a mental process); and
providing the emergency stop trajectory based on the checking in order to safeguard the driving behavior of the vehicle via the provided emergency stop trajectory [evaluation or judgement, which is grouped as a mental process].
Each of the steps of claims 1-9 is executed by a computer (a device for data processing as in claim 8 and a computer readable medium and computer in claim 9) which are additional elements used as tools to execute the abstract ideas.
Further, dependent Claims 2-7 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims 1-9 recites an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4, and 6-9, as far as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by King et al. (US 2020/0189573 A1).
Regarding claim 1, King invention teaches a method for safeguarding a driving behavior of a vehicle by providing an emergency stop trajectory for the vehicle [para. 0012 teaches the contingent trajectory may control the vehicle to come to a stop], comprising the following steps: providing a main trajectory (116) of the vehicle [para. 0022 teaches the primary system (106) processes sensor data (114) from the sensor(s) (104) to generate a primary trajectory (116) and the secondary trajectory (118)], wherein the main trajectory [primary trajectory (116)] describes a movement path of a regular movement of vehicle [Figure 1]; generating at least one preliminary trajectory [secondary trajectory (118)] based on the main trajectory (116) [para. 0026 teaches In the example of FIG. 1, the primary system (106) generates the primary trajectory (116) to control the autonomous vehicle (102) and generates secondary trajectory (118) as a contingent (e.g., backup) trajectory to be used instead of the primary trajectory in event that the primary trajectory (116) is invalid or otherwise unacceptable, or otherwise to be executed in the case of hardware or software failures, or the like], wherein the at least one preliminary trajectory (118) describes a stopping process of the vehicle (102) [para. 0026 teaches secondary trajectory (118) may control the autonomous vehicle (102) to decelerate to a stop (e.g., a gentle stop associated with a deceleration rate that is less than a maximum deceleration rate that is possible for autonomous vehicle 102)]; checking the at least one generated preliminary trajectory (118) using at least one criterion to evaluate whether the generated preliminary trajectory (116) is suitable as the emergency stop trajectory for an emergency stop maneuver of the vehicle [para. 0030 and 0075-0076], wherein the at least one criterion is specific to: (i) driving safety during the emergency stop maneuver [para. 0030 and 0075-0076], and/or (ii) drivability of the emergency stop maneuver by the vehicle, wherein the emergency stop trajectory describes a movement path for the emergency stop maneuver of the vehicle [para. 0030, 0075-0076 and further Figure 7A/7B]; and providing the emergency stop trajectory based on the checking in order to safeguard the driving behavior of the vehicle via the provided emergency stop trajectory [para. 0030-0033, 0075-0076 and 0128-0129].
Regarding claim 2, as discussed in claim 1, notes Figure 1, King invention further teaches the movement path of the main trajectory (116) describes a longitudinal and a transverse movement of the vehicle (102) [Figure 1], wherein a transverse movement of the at least one generated preliminary trajectory (118) coincides with the transverse movement of the main trajectory (116) [para. 0029-0033].
Regarding claim 3, as discussed in claim 1, King invention further teaches the step of generating the at least one preliminary trajectory includes generating at least two preliminary trajectories in which a stopping process described by each of the preliminary trajectory is varied [para. 0052 teaches the planning component (208) may generate the secondary trajectory (118) and/or send the secondary trajectory (118) to the secondary system (108). For example, the planning component (208) may generate multiple contingent trajectories and select one of the contingent trajectories to be the secondary trajectory (118) which would have been equivalent to the secondary trajectory (118) is to be included two trajectories].
Regarding claim 4, as discussed in claims 1 and 3, King invention further teaches the step of generating is carried out during a journey of the vehicle and the varying of the stopping process is carried out at least depending on a current speed of the vehicle [Further see para. 0030-0033, 0052 and 0128-0129].
Regarding claim 6, as discussed in claims 1 and 3, King invention further teaches the at least one criterion is at least one of the following: drivability of the preliminary trajectory, wherein the drivability of the preliminary trajectory indicates whether the preliminary trajectory can be realized by a longitudinal and a transverse guidance of the vehicle, a permissible occupied area of the vehicle along the preliminary trajectory, wherein the permissible occupied area indicates a predefined area of surroundings of the vehicle, a freedom from collision of the vehicle along the preliminary trajectory, wherein the freedom from collision assesses a risk of collision of the vehicle with: (i) one or more road users, or (ii) at least one static object [Figures 7A/7B, 8 and para. 0029-0033, 0140-0153; and 0177].
Regarding claim 7, as discussed in claims 1 and 3, King invention further teaches after a defined period of time, the at least one preliminary trajectory is generated as a current preliminary trajectory, wherein, in the event that a result of checking the current preliminary trajectory using the at least one criterion indicates that the current preliminary trajectory is not suitable as the emergency stop trajectory, the following step is performed: controlling the vehicle along a preliminary trajectory which was generated prior to the current preliminary trajectory [Further see Figures 7A/7B and para. 0029-0033, 0140-0153].
Regarding claims 8 and 9, see discussion in claim 1, further notes para. 0086 which describes the operations represent computer-executable instructions stored on one or more computer-readable storage media; and para. 0167 teaches memory (824, 828 and/or 832) may be examples of non-transitory computer-readable media.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al. in view of Magzimof et al. (US 11,249,474 B2).
Regarding claim 5, as above discussion, King invention further teaches the varying of the stopping process is carried out and/or (ii) is collision-free taking see Figures 7A/7B].
King invention fails to specifically disclose a system latency would be used in the stopping process of vehicle.
Notes Figure 5, Magzimof invention teaches a safety of autonomous vehicle using a virtual augmented support environment includes a system latency [col. 13, lines 36-59 further teaches the support environment may additionally include virtual guidelines and estimation projections. In one embodiment, a virtual element such as a line is superimposed on a video feed viewable by a remote support system 122. The virtual element may be positioned in such a way as to reflect the estimated position of the vehicle's front in case an emergency stop procedure is initiated immediately. In another embodiment, such a virtual element is positioned to reflect the estimated position of the vehicle's front in case deceleration and halt is performed in an orderly manner. In another embodiment, a virtual element is positioned to reflect the position occupied by the vehicle front at the moment of frame rendering. Since network latency and other processing effects may delay transmission and display of a video frame, the actual current vehicle position may differ noticeably from the one where the current video frame was recorded. Such a virtual line or a similar visual cue may assist the operator in planning subsequent driving commands. In another embodiment, two virtual lines enveloping the lateral extent of the vehicle over the desired time interval may be superimposed on the video feed, assuming that the steering angle or its derivative of the desired degree remains constant during this time. Such lines may be interpreted as the outline of the predicted trajectory of the vehicle].
Since the prior art references are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Magzimof invention would have been recognized in the pertinent art of King.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have provided a latency system as taught by Magzimof invention into the safeguarding driving behavior of a vehicle of King system/method for the purpose of providing a delay time in the stopping process by using system latency (network latency) of the vehicle in order to control the emergency stop procedure.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNY H HOANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-4843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday [Maxi-Flex].
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, Logan Kraft can be reached on (571) 270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
October 28, 2025
/JHH/
/Johnny H. Hoang/
Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747