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 8/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner recommends amending paragraph 1 of the specification, regarding the cross-reference to related applications, to include the published patent number for U.S. Application No. 17/116,422 for consistency purposes.
Appropriate correction is optional, but is nevertheless requested.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “aspects of the disclosure provide…” in line 1 is a phrase which can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, line 2, “other another detected object” should read “another detected object”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12116007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the relevant claims in the present invention are broader than the corresponding claims in the patent. Furthermore, all of the features of claims 1-5 and 8-20 of the present invention are primarily directed to the corresponding features in claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, and 18-20 of the ‘007 patent. See the following comparison:
(Present claim 1) A method comprising: determining, by one or more processors, a baseline for a planned trajectory based on a route to a destination of a vehicle [‘007: Claim 1 (the method comprising: determining a baseline for a planned trajectory that the autonomous vehicle can use to follow a route to a destination)];
determining, by the one or more processors, a stopping point at which the autonomous vehicle will come to a stop, wherein the baseline extends beyond the stopping point [‘007: Claim 1 (determining a stopping point corresponding to a traffic control that will cause the autonomous vehicle to come to a stop using the baseline)];
and generating, by the one or more processors, the planned trajectory by adjusting the baseline based on the stopping point such that an end of the planned trajectory is determined based on the stopping point [‘007: Claim 1 (generating the planned trajectory by adjusting the baseline, and using the stopping point and the plurality of constraints, wherein any of the plurality of constraints beyond the stopping point are ignored)].
For at least these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the features in claims 1-5 and 8-20 of the present invention and claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, and 18-20 of the ‘007 patent, which were present before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, are not patentably distinct in so far as the present invention is an obvious variation of the ‘007 patent, and the specifications of both the present invention and the ‘007 patent support the identical critical features notes above. Further, claims 1-5 and 8-20 of the present invention are broader than claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, and 18-20 of the ‘007 patent, and would, therefore, dominate at least claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, and 18-20 of the ‘007 patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of determining a planned trajectory for a vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors, a baseline for a planned trajectory based on a route to a destination of a vehicle [mental process/step];
determining, by the one or more processors, a stopping point at which the autonomous vehicle will come to a stop, wherein the baseline extends beyond the stopping point [mental process/step]; and
generating, by the one or more processors, the planned trajectory by adjusting the baseline based on the stopping point such that an end of the planned trajectory is determined based on the stopping point [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining…” and “generating…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], a baseline for a planned trajectory based on a route to a destination of a vehicle;
determining, by the one or more processors [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], a stopping point at which the autonomous vehicle will come to a stop, wherein the baseline extends beyond the stopping point; and
generating, by the one or more processors [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], the planned trajectory by adjusting the baseline based on the stopping point such that an end of the planned trajectory is determined based on the stopping point.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The “one or more processors” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of modifying the end of a trajectory based on a stopping point) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining… and generating… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Additional Claims
Independent claim 15 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as controlling the vehicle according to the planned trajectory, as claimed in claim 14. Therefore, dependent claims 2-13 and 16-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-13 and 15-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11390300; hereinafter Phillips) and further in view of Iimura et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0308625; hereinafter Iimura).
Regarding claim 1, Phillips teaches a method comprising: determining, by one or more processors, a baseline for a planned trajectory based on a route to a destination of a vehicle (Phillips: Col. 35, lines 6-12; i.e., a vehicle computing system can obtain, at 1202, an initial travel path for an autonomous vehicle from a first location to a second location… the initial travel path represents an ideal path from the first position to the second position that is determined prior to consideration of the one or more objects);
and determining, by the one or more processors, a stopping point at which the autonomous vehicle will come to a stop, wherein the baseline extends beyond the stopping point (Phillips: Col. 7, lines 29-32; i.e., the velocity profiles can be generated based, at least in part, on map data including stopping locations such as stop signs, traffic lights, and/or traffic gridlock; See Fig. 8A for stop line in which the autonomous vehicle will come to a stop).
Phillips does not explicitly teach generating, by the one or more processors, the planned trajectory by adjusting the baseline based on the stopping point such that an end of the planned trajectory is determined based on the stopping point.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Iimura teaches generating, by the one or more processors, the planned trajectory by adjusting the baseline based on the stopping point such that an end of the planned trajectory is determined based on the stopping point (Iimura: Par. 99; i.e., the ECU 10 operates to detect a stop line 8 in the vicinity of the traffic light L. In this situation, the ECU 10 operates to correct the target traveling course R to enable the vehicle 1 to stop at the stop line so as to observe the traffic light L, and apply the resulting corrected target traveling course Rc. The corrected target traveling course Rc is set to extend from a current position to the stop line; as displayed in Figures 6A and 6B, the baseline course R is adjusted based on the detected stopping point resulting in course Rc).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Phillips to have further incorporated generating, by the one or more processors, the planned trajectory by adjusting the baseline based on the stopping point such that an end of the planned trajectory is determined based on the stopping point, as taught by Iimura. Doing so would limit the calculation load of the system (Iimura: Par. 15; i.e., the target traveling course can be appropriately corrected in response to acquisition of the traveling regulation information, so that it is possible to suppress an increase in calculation load).
Regarding claim 2, Phillips in view of Iimura teaches the method according to claim 1. Phillips further teaches wherein determining the stopping point includes identifying a traffic control (Phillips: Col. 19, lines 23-37; i.e., the autonomy computing system 120 can retrieve or otherwise obtain data including the map data 122… the map data 122 can provide information regarding: … traffic control data (e.g., the location and instructions of signage, traffic lights, or other traffic control devices)).
Regarding claim 3, Phillips in view of Iimura teaches the method according to claim 2. Phillips further teaches wherein the traffic control is a stop sign (Phillips: Col. 7, lines 29-32; i.e., the velocity profiles can be generated based, at least in part, on map data including stopping locations such as stop signs, traffic lights, and/or traffic gridlock).
Regarding claim 4, Phillips in view of Iimura teaches the method according to claim 2. Phillips further teaches wherein the traffic control is a traffic signal light (Phillips: Col. 7, lines 29-32; i.e., the velocity profiles can be generated based, at least in part, on map data including stopping locations such as stop signs, traffic lights, and/or traffic gridlock).
Regarding claim 5, Phillips in view of Iimura teaches the method according to claim 1. Phillips further teaches wherein the baseline includes a path that traverses one or more lanes of a road in a sequence in accordance with the route (Phillips: Col. 3, lines 19-21; i.e., the initial travel path can include a nominal path within lane boundaries and/or other reference points within the autonomous vehicle's environment).
Regarding claim 6, Phillips in view of Iimura teaches the method according to claim 1. Phillips further teaches wherein the baseline includes a geometry that does not account for speed of the vehicle (Phillips: Col. 35, lines 7-9; i.e., at 1202, an initial travel path for an autonomous vehicle from a first location to a second location; Col. 35, lines 45-48; i.e., the vehicle computing system (e.g., vehicle computing system 112 of FIG. 1) can determine, at 1206, a velocity profile for the autonomous vehicle based, at least in part, on the one or more objects; velocity is not considered until later in the method and therefore, the geometry of the baseline trajectory does not account for the speed of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 7, Phillips in view of Iimura teaches the method according to claim 1. Phillips further teaches wherein the baseline includes a geometry determined to be a most efficient path for the vehicle to follow the route (Phillips: Col. 29, lines 1-3; i.e., the initial travel path 706 can be a path that the autonomous vehicle 702 would travel if there were no obstacles in the travel path; Col. 35, lines 9-12; i.e., the initial travel path represents an ideal path from the first position to the second position that is determined prior to consideration of the one or more objects; the initial travel path is the most efficient path to follow when there are no obstacles present).
Regarding claim 14, Phillips in view of Iimura teaches the method according to claim 1. Phillips further teaches controlling the autonomous vehicle autonomously according to the planned trajectory (Phillips: Col. 27; i.e., 42-44; i.e., the vehicle controller 240 can control the motion of the autonomous vehicle based, at least in part, on the received motion controls to follow the optimized trajectory).
Regarding claim 15, Phillips teaches a system comprising one or more processors configured to: determine a baseline for a planned trajectory based on a route to a destination of a vehicle (Phillips: Col. 35, lines 6-12; i.e., a vehicle computing system can obtain, at 1202, an initial travel path for an autonomous vehicle from a first location to a second location… the initial travel path represents an ideal path from the first position to the second position that is determined prior to consideration of the one or more objects);
and determine a stopping point at which the autonomous vehicle will come to a stop, wherein the baseline extends beyond the stopping point (Phillips: Col. 7, lines 29-32; i.e., the velocity profiles can be generated based, at least in part, on map data including stopping locations such as stop signs, traffic lights, and/or traffic gridlock; See Fig. 8A for stop line in which the autonomous vehicle will come to a stop);
Phillips does not explicitly teach generate the planned trajectory by adjusting the baseline based on the stopping point such that an end of the planned trajectory is determined based on the stopping point.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Iimura teaches generate the planned trajectory by adjusting the baseline based on the stopping point such that an end of the planned trajectory is determined based on the stopping point (Iimura: Par. 99; i.e., the ECU 10 operates to detect a stop line 8 in the vicinity of the traffic light L. In this situation, the ECU 10 operates to correct the target traveling course R to enable the vehicle 1 to stop at the stop line so as to observe the traffic light L, and apply the resulting corrected target traveling course Rc. The corrected target traveling course Rc is set to extend from a current position to the stop line; as displayed in Figures 6A and 6B, the baseline course R is adjusted based on the detected stopping point resulting in course Rc).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Phillips to have further incorporated generate the planned trajectory by adjusting the baseline based on the stopping point such that an end of the planned trajectory is determined based on the stopping point, as taught by Iimura. Doing so would limit the calculation load of the system (Iimura: Par. 15; i.e., the target traveling course can be appropriately corrected in response to acquisition of the traveling regulation information, so that it is possible to suppress an increase in calculation load).
Regarding claim 16, Phillips in view of Iimura teaches the system according to claim 15. Phillips further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the stopping point includes identifying a traffic control (Phillips: Col. 19, lines 23-37; i.e., the autonomy computing system 120 can retrieve or otherwise obtain data including the map data 122… the map data 122 can provide information regarding: … traffic control data (e.g., the location and instructions of signage, traffic lights, or other traffic control devices)).
Regarding claim 17, Phillips in view of Iimura teaches the system according to claim 15. Phillips further teaches wherein the baseline includes a path that traverses one or more lanes of a road in a sequence in accordance with the route (Phillips: Col. 3, lines 19-21; i.e., the initial travel path can include a nominal path within lane boundaries and/or other reference points within the autonomous vehicle's environment).
Regarding claim 18, Phillips in view of Iimura teaches the system according to claim 15. Phillips further teaches wherein the baseline includes a geometry that does not account for speed of the vehicle (Phillips: Col. 35, lines 7-9; i.e., at 1202, an initial travel path for an autonomous vehicle from a first location to a second location; Col. 35, lines 45-48; i.e., the vehicle computing system (e.g., vehicle computing system 112 of FIG. 1) can determine, at 1206, a velocity profile for the autonomous vehicle based, at least in part, on the one or more objects; velocity is not considered until later in the method and therefore, the geometry of the baseline trajectory does not account for the speed of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 19, Phillips in view of Iimura teaches the system according to claim 15. Phillips further teaches wherein the baseline includes a geometry determined to be a most efficient path for the vehicle to follow the route (Phillips: Col. 29, lines 1-3; i.e., the initial travel path 706 can be a path that the autonomous vehicle 702 would travel if there were no obstacles in the travel path; Col. 35, lines 9-12; i.e., the initial travel path represents an ideal path from the first position to the second position that is determined prior to consideration of the one or more objects; the initial travel path is the most efficient path to follow when there are no obstacles present).
Claims 8-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of Iimura and further in view of Oguro et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11008009; hereinafter Oguro).
Regarding claim 8, Phillips in view of Iimura teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the end of the planned trajectory is the stopping point shifted by a buffer amount.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Oguro teaches wherein the end of the planned trajectory is the stopping point shifted by a buffer amount (Oguro: Col. 20, lines 49-52; i.e., as illustrated in FIG. 11B showing virtually the change of the stop prediction position Pp, correction is performed so that a stop prediction position Pp′ recedes to get close to the vehicle stop position Ps; the stopping point is adjusted).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Phillips and Iimura to have further incorporated wherein the end of the planned trajectory is the stopping point shifted by a buffer amount, as taught by Oguro. Doing so would allow the system to reduce the processing load required to generate the vehicle trajectory (Oguro: Col. 8, lines 27-29; i.e., the process load in generating a trajectory to be described below is reduced).
Regarding claim 9, Phillips in view of Iimura and Oguro teaches the method according to claim 8. Oguro further teaches wherein the buffer amount corresponds to an error in the planned trajectory (Oguro: Col. 23, lines 61-63; i.e., even though the vehicle stop position Ps includes an error, the target speed can be set to incorporate and allow the error).
Regarding claim 10, Phillips in view of Iimura and Oguro teaches the method according to claim 8. Oguro further teaches wherein the buffer amount corresponds to an error in the baseline (Oguro: Col. 14, lines 23-25; i.e., the information acquired from the navigation device 16 should be regarded as containing a detection error; therefore, a low numeral (for example, reliability Re=0.3) is assigned; there is a detection error in the baseline due to the low reliability).
Regarding claim 20, Phillips in view of Iimura teaches the system according to claim 15, but does not explicitly teach wherein the end of the planned trajectory is the stopping point shifted by a buffer amount.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Oguro teaches wherein the end of the planned trajectory is the stopping point shifted by a buffer amount (Oguro: Col. 20, lines 49-52; i.e., as illustrated in FIG. 11B showing virtually the change of the stop prediction position Pp, correction is performed so that a stop prediction position Pp′ recedes to get close to the vehicle stop position Ps; the stopping point is adjusted).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Phillips and Iimura to have further incorporated wherein the end of the planned trajectory is the stopping point shifted by a buffer amount, as taught by Oguro. Doing so would allow the system to reduce the processing load required to generate the vehicle trajectory (Oguro: Col. 8, lines 27-29; i.e., the process load in generating a trajectory to be described below is reduced).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of Iimura and further in view of Di Cairano et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0375901; hereinafter Di Cairano).
Regarding claim 11, Phillips in view of Iimura teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein determining the planned trajectory includes ignoring any detected objects that would interact with the planned trajectory beyond the stopping point.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Di Cairano teaches wherein determining the planned trajectory includes ignoring any detected objects that would interact with the planned trajectory beyond the stopping point (Di Cairano: Par. 32; i.e., the current path 253, can be interpreted as the reference path the reaches the target position; Par. 34; i.e., when an obstacle on the current path is detected 320, the method modifies 330 the current path for the vehicle to produce a modified path avoiding the obstacle; only objects detected up until the target position are considered).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Phillips and Iimura to have further incorporated wherein determining the planned trajectory includes ignoring any detected objects that would interact with the planned trajectory beyond the stopping point, as taught by Di Cairano. Doing so would reduce the computational complexity of the method (Di Cairano: Par. 8; i.e., the total computational complexity of the method for determining the modified path is reduced).
Regarding claim 12, Phillips in view of Iimura and Di Cairano teaches the method according to claim 11. Di Cairano further teaches wherein ignoring includes avoiding collision evaluation with the detected objects while performing proximity evaluation with another detected object and the planned trajectory (Di Cairano: Par. 86; i.e., when a new obstacle appears or an obstacle changes position, first the edges which collide with the new obstacles are determined. For each edge that intersects with obstacles, the corresponding child endpoint node is marked as invalid; as displayed in Figure 5, only objects detected up until the target position are considered for proximity evaluation).
Regarding claim 13, Phillips in view of Iimura and Di Cairano teaches the method according to claim 11. Di Cairano further teaches wherein ignoring includes avoiding proximity evaluation with the detected objects while performing proximity evaluation with other another detected object and the planned trajectory (Di Cairano: Par. 86; i.e., when a new obstacle appears or an obstacle changes position, first the edges which collide with the new obstacles are determined. For each edge that intersects with obstacles, the corresponding child endpoint node is marked as invalid; as displayed in Figure 5, only objects detected up until the target position are considered for proximity evaluation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art deemed pertinent in the art of determining a planned trajectory based on a baseline and a stopping point includes Turlej et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11584393), Wilkinson (U.S. Patent No. 11237564), Gallagher et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0400096), and Funke et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0048818).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON Z WILLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:00-5:30.
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 D. 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.
/BRANDON Z WILLIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665