DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant Amendment and Argument filed on 01/02/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-12 are pending for examination.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to independent claims overcome previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for claims 1-8 and therefore the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) of claims 1-8 are withdrawn.
Amendments to claims 3 and 5 overcome previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for claims 3 and 5 and therefore the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 3 and 5 are withdrawn.
Amendments to independent claims incorporating a control step integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, therefore the previous rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claims 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 7-8 recite :
“for each of the discrete future time points, extracting, from the multi-dimensional data structure, a plurality of local-optimum positions, each local-optimum position representing a respective possible position of the vehicle…” However, this limitation appears to be supported in the specification by para [0015] in the Background/Summary section with “at least one local optimum of the first evaluation function is ascertained at each discrete point in time, wherein the at least one local optimum represents a possible state of the vehicle at the associated discrete point in time.” Where it appears the plurality of optimum all represent a singular state, where no definition of vehicle state as a vehicle position is included in the specification.
“constructing, for the planning horizon, a directed graph whose nodes comprise the extracted local-optimum positions of successive discrete future time points…” However, support for this limitation appears to be limited to para [002] in the Background/Summary section where is it mentioned that the planning can be visualized as a tree. This support does not appear to sufficiently describe the claimed subject matter.
“evaluating, for each edge of the directed graph and using a second evaluation function, a mode-consistency value indicative of whether the connected local-optimum positions belong to a same driving mode” However, this limitation appears to the be supported by para [0043] in the Description section which states “…the at least one candidate trajectory 17 is evaluated by means of a second evaluation function 20 which evaluates state transitions between successive states of the at least one candidate trajectory 17.” This support does not appear to sufficiently describe the claimed subject matter specifically regarding the evaluation of the state transitions including a mode-consistency value indicative of whether the connected local-optimum positions belong to the same driving mode.
“ascertaining a plurality of candidate trajectories by identifying, using edges of the directed graph excluding inconsistent edges whose mode-consistency values fail to satisfy a threshold, a path formed of a temporal sequence that includes one of the extracted local-optimum positions for each of the discrete future time points” However, this limitation appears to be supported by para [0009] in the Background/Summary section where the specification recites “By generating the ego trajectory without evaluating candidates and by selectively differentiating different modes from one another, such driving behavior of a vehicle can be prevented.” Which doesn’t not sufficiently describe the claimed subject matter specifically regarding the exclusion of inconsistent edges whose mode-consistency values fail to satisfy a threshold.
Claims 2-6 and 9-12 are dependent on independent claim 1 and do not cure the deficiencies thereof, therefor they are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 1-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “driving modes” in claims 1 and 7-8 is used by the claim to mean including “decelerate and accelerate” (as per para [0009] of the instant application “If the modes “decelerate” and “accelerate” in each case have low costs…” as the only reference to defining driving modes) while the accepted meaning is “a selectable setting of a vehicle.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 2-6 and 9-12 are dependent on independent claim 1 and do not cure the deficiencies thereof, therefore they are rejected for the same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a )set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior arts found were
Amirloo et al (US 20210276598 A1) teaches a system and method for path and/or motion planning and for training such a system are described. In one aspect, the method comprises generating a sequence of predicted occupancy grid maps (OGMs) for T-T.sub.1 time steps based on a sequence of OGMs for 0-T.sub.1 time steps, a reference map of an environment in which an autonomous vehicle is operating, and a trajectory. A cost volume is generated for the sequence of predicted OGMs. The cost volume comprises a plurality of cost maps for T-T.sub.1 time steps. Each cost map corresponds to a predicted OGM in the sequence of predicted OGMs and has the same dimensions as the corresponding predicted OGM. Each cost map comprises a plurality of cells.
Cserna et al (20220290997 A1) teaches a system for driver data guided spatial planning. A spatial structure is generated comprising a plurality of nodes connected by edges. At least some of the nodes and edges represent a path to navigate a vehicle from a first point to a second point. Edges of the spatial structure are labeled as useful based on a distance metric. The spatial structure is pruned by removing one or more edges from the spatial structure according to a respective label of the edges, wherein an extent of the removal is based on a predetermined graph size, a predetermined performance, or any combinations thereof to obtain a pruned graph. A path from the first point to the second point on the pruned graph is identified and the vehicle is navigated in accordance with the path from the first point to the second point on the pruned graph.
Ma et al (US 11392128 B1) teaches a system where a data structure is used to associate entities in an environment of the vehicle with the vehicle and/or with each other. For example, associations between entities can be based on locations of the entities relative to each other and/or relative to segments of a drivable surface. Information about associations between the vehicle and/or entities in the environment may be used to identify entities that may influence travel of the vehicle and/or other entities and, in some implementations, vehicle controls can be generated based on these relevant entities.
Ivanov et al (US 20250033665 A1) teaches a system for a vehicle including a planning system may generate a set of candidate trajectories for controlling the vehicle. The planning system may receive sensor data from sensors. The planning system may determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, environmental data, and/or the vehicle data. The planning system may determine, based at least in part on the environmental data and/or the vehicle data, a set of candidate trajectories corresponding to a set of contemporaneous candidate actions for the vehicle to follow. An individual candidate trajectory in the set is determined by dynamically shifting the individual candidate trajectory by a lateral distance relative to the vehicle or a lane in the environment. A candidate action may indicate a position, orientation, velocity, acceleration, or the like for the vehicle to track to by a certain time or distance.
Lorenzetti et al (US 12304530 B1) teaches a system for autonomous vehicle control based on a probability of collision. The system includes receiving a vehicle trajectory associated with a vehicle and an object trajectory associated with an object, determining a vehicle probability distribution associated with the vehicle at a first time along the vehicle trajectory and an object probability distribution associated with the object at the first time along the object trajectory, determining a combined probability distribution based on the vehicle and object probability distributions, determining a relative position between the vehicle and the object at the first time based on the vehicle and object positions, determining a probability value based on the combined probability distribution and the relative position, and controlling the vehicle based on the probability value.
Censi et al (US 12276983 B2) teaches a system for planning a motion of a machine having moving capabilities is based on strategic guidelines derived from various basic principles, such as laws, ethics, preferences, driving experiences, and road environments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HATCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4518. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, James J Lee can be reached on 571-270-5965. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights