DETAILED ACTION
This non-final action is in reply to the application filed 4 November 2024.
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 .
Priority
Claims 1-20 are pending having a filing date of 4 November 2024, amended via a preliminary amendment, dated 4 November 2024, and claiming a domestic benefit / national state entry from PCT/US23/24114, filed 1 June 2023, and to U.S. Provisional Application Number 63/348,520, filed 3 June 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 4 November 2024 complies with 35 C.F.R. 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the 1449 Form is enclosed herewith.
Drawings
The drawings, filed 4 November 2024, are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 13-19 are objected to because of the following informalities summarized below.
Claim 3, recites a “user interface”. It is unclear whether this is the same “user interface” recited in claim 1.
Claim 13, recites the exact same limitation and dependency (claim 1, a system claim) as claim 5. The examiner interprets this as a typographical error, in which the claim should be dependent upon independent claim 9.
Claim 14, dependent upon claim 13, is also objected to.
Claim 15, recites the exact same limitation and dependency (claim 1, a system claim) as claim 7. The examiner interprets this as a typographical error, in which the claim should be dependent upon independent claim 9.
Claim 16, recites the exact same limitation and dependency (claim 1, a system claim) as claim 8. The examiner interprets this as a typographical error, in which the claim should be dependent upon independent claim 9.
Claim 17, recites “the automatic placement of behaviors”. This recitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 18, recites “the placement of intersection entrances”. This recitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 19, recites “the placement of intersection exits.” This recitation lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0341862 to Oshima et al. (hereafter Oshima).
As per claim 1, Oshima discloses [a] mobile robot (see at least Oshima, Abstract, disclosing an autonomous moving device), comprising:
a navigation system in operative communication with a drive system (see at least Oshima, Fig. 1 ; [0098] disclosing with regard to Fig. 1, that the driven wheels 40 <interpreted as a drive system> causes the autonomous movement device 100 to move, based on instructions (control) from the processor 10 <interpreted as the navigation system in operative communication with>. The driven wheels 40 functions as movement means.);
one or more sensors configured to collect sensor data (see at least Oshima, Fig. 1, showing sensors 31; [0092] disclosing that the processor 10 recognizes an object that the sensor 31 detected, based on information (distance to the object, received light intensity, and the like) that the processor 10 acquired from the sensor 31),
wherein the one or more sensors are configured to collect training data representative of a route or portions of a route as the mobile robot is navigated along the route (see at least Oshima, Fig. 1, showing processor 10 including the surrounding information acquirer 11, the movement path generator 12, the travel route generator 13, the surrounding information converter 14, and the movement controller 15 and route storage 22; [0095] disclosing that the operation acquirer 32 includes a joystick and the like that serve as input devices, and acquires a user operation. The operation acquirer 32 functions as operation acquisition means. As illustrated in FIG. 4, the operation acquirer 32 includes a lever 321 and a touch panel 322 that is integrated with a display panel. The user can instruct the autonomous movement device 100 on a travel direction and movement velocity by a direction in which the user tilts the lever 321 and a tilt amount (tilt angle), respectively. In addition, on the touch panel 322, an operation menu that serves as a user interface (UI) through which an instruction from the user is accepted (a menu for performing setting of a maximum velocity, a maximum acceleration, and the like and selection of a setting value for each thereof, specification of a destination, movement stop instruction, instruction of start and end of teaching, playback, playback correction, reverse playback, auto-determination playback, loop playback, or the like, selection of a movement mode (an autonomous movement mode, a manual movement mode, or the like), and the like) is displayed, and the user can provide the autonomous movement device 100 with each instruction by touching one of the instructions in the operation menu. The operation acquirer 32 functions as operation acquisition means; [0096]; [0104] disclosing that route generator 12 generates route data of a surrounding environment around the autonomous movement device 100 based on point cloud data detected by the sensor 31 (for example, a surrounding environment indicating an existence situation of objects (a wall, an obstacle, a retro reflective material, and the like) around the autonomous movement device 100 including locations (distance, direction, and the like) and the like of the objects). ... The route generator 12 may also construct route data by, every time the autonomous movement device 100 moves a predetermined distance (for example, 10 cm), recording data detected by the sensor 31 (a surrounding environment indicating an existence situation of objects around the autonomous movement device 100) in the route storage 22, which is described later, in conjunction with information about a present location (self-location) of the autonomous movement device 100; [0105] disclosing that when the present location of the autonomous movement device 100 is a location at which the autonomous movement device 100 was instructed to start teaching in past target following memorizing processing and the destination is a location at which the autonomous movement device 100 was instructed to end the teaching in the past target following memorizing processing, the movement path generator 13 may generate a route (teaching route) along which the autonomous movement device 100 followed a following target in the past target following memorizing processing as a movement path. In this case, the movement path generator 13 is to memorize a route along which the autonomous movement device 100 moved in the route data recorded in the route storage 22 as a movement path. );
a user interface configured to receive user inputs providing route information (see at least Oshima, Fig. 1, showing operation acquirer 32 and Fig. 4; [0095]); and
a route generator configured to process the route information and the training data to generate a route network comprising a plurality of route segments (see at least Oshima, see Fig. 1, showing processor 10, including the surrounding information acquirer 11, the movement path generator 12, the travel route generator 13, the surrounding information converter 14, and the movement controller 15; [0104] disclosing that any data format can be employed for the route data. The route generator 12 may generate route data by, for example, simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), using data detected by the sensor 31. The route generator 12 may also construct route data by, every time the autonomous movement device 100 moves a predetermined distance (for example, 10 cm), recording data detected by the sensor 31 (a surrounding environment indicating an existence situation of objects around the autonomous movement device 100) in the route storage 22; [0105] disclosing that when the movement path generator 13 is provided with a destination, the movement path generator 13 generates a movement path from the present location of the autonomous movement device 100 to the provided destination based on the route data recorded in the route storage 22 ; [0106] disclosing that the surrounding information converter 14 converts information about objects in the surroundings of the autonomous movement device 100 (a surrounding environment) recorded in the route storage 22 to data in the backward direction. Data conversion performed by the surrounding information converter 14 is described below using FIGS. 7A and 7B. In the route storage 22, first, a surrounding environment in the forward direction as illustrated in FIG. 7A is recorded ; [0107] disclosing that when an instruction to start playback is input to the operation acquirer 32, the movement controller 15 controls the driven wheels 40 in such a way that the autonomous movement device 100 moves along a movement path that the movement path generator 13 generated. Further, when the operation mode is a manual movement mode, the movement controller 15 controls the driven wheels 40 based on an instruction from the user that is acquired by the operation acquirer 32).
As per claim 2, Oshima further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the training data is generated while the mobile robot is navigated in a first direction (see at least Oshima, [0005] disclosing that an objective of the present disclosure is to provide an autonomous movement device and the like that are capable of using a taught route also in the opposite direction to the direction of movement at the time when the route was taught; [0021] disclosing that the memorized movement path may include a movement path in a direction other than a direction of movement at a time when the autonomous movement device followed the following target) and
the mobile robot is configured to autonomously navigate in a second direction that is opposite the first direction (see at least Oshima, [0130] disclosing that as illustrated in FIG. 9, data detected by the sensor 31 when the autonomous movement device 100 located at the second point 82 faces in a direction opposite to the direction toward the first point 81 is a surrounding environment 60e and data detected by the sensor 31 when the autonomous movement device 100 faces in the direction toward the first point is a surrounding environment 60f, as a result of which there is an overlapping portion between the surrounding environment 60e and the surrounding environment 60f, as illustrated by shaded portions 60ef; [0131] disclosing that he processor 10 is capable of acquiring which one of the points registered in the point storage 21 the present location of the autonomous movement device 100 is by comparing a surrounding environment detected by the sensor 31 with data of the respective points registered in the point storage 21. Note that, when data detected by the sensor 31 do not match with data of any point registered in the point storage 21, it is impossible to acquire the present location and the determination in step S202 results in No; [0159]; [0167]-[0168]).
As per claim 5, Oshima further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the route information includes one or more destinations at which the mobile robot is to perform at least one task (see at least Oshima, [0175] disclosing that the processor 10 may memorize a temporary stop position P1 <interpreted as a destination> and a temporary stop time T1 at the time when the autonomous movement device 100 follows a recognized following target (at the time of controlling the driven wheels 40 in accordance with teaching control data) in the above-described target following memorizing processing, and, when the autonomous movement device 100 moves along a memorized movement path (at the time of the playback processing or the playback correction processing), control the autonomous movement device 100 to stop at the temporary stop position P1 for the temporary stop time T1; [0176] disclosing that the processor 10 may memorize an output position P2 <interpreted as a destination> at which a control signal S is output to a predetermined device (and a temporary stop time T2, when necessary) at the time when the autonomous movement device 100 follows a recognized following target (at the time of controlling the driven wheels 40 in accordance with teaching control data) in the above-described target following memorizing processing, and, when the autonomous movement device 100 moves along a memorized movement path (at the time of the playback processing or the playback correction processing), perform control in such a way as to output the control signal S at the output position P2 at which a signal is output to the predetermined device and thereby cause the predetermined device to operate (or prevent the predetermined device from operating). For example, it is assumed that, when the processor 10 is capable of storing 4-bits output patterns “0000” to “1111”, “0001” and “0000” are defined as an output pattern of a control signal S1 for disconnecting a connection mechanism by which a towable pallet dolly or the like is connected to the autonomous movement device 100 and an output pattern of a control signal S2 for not disconnecting the connection mechanism, respectively. Then, it is possible to memorize a setting for, by outputting the control signal S1 having the output pattern “0001” at the predetermined output position P2, disconnecting the connection mechanism by which the towable pallet dolly or the like is connected to the autonomous movement device 100 (and, further, temporarily stopping for the time T2 required for the disconnection), a setting for, by outputting the control signal S2 having the output pattern “0000”, not disconnecting the connection mechanism by which the towable pallet dolly or the like is connected to the autonomous movement device 100, or the like. Because of this configuration, it becomes possible to select whether or not the autonomous movement device 100 disconnects the connection mechanism by which the towable pallet dolly or the like is connected to the autonomous movement device 100 and leaves the loads at a predetermined position <interpreted as performing a task> on a movement path that the autonomous movement device 100 memorized, and thereby cause the autonomous movement device 100 to move more flexibly).
As per claim 6, Oshima further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the at least one task includes a load pick up and/or a load drop off (see at least Oshima, [0175]; [0176] disclosing that ... Because of this configuration, it becomes possible to select whether or not the autonomous movement device 100 disconnects the connection mechanism by which the towable pallet dolly or the like is connected to the autonomous movement device 100 and leaves the loads at a predetermined position <interpreted as performing a load pick up and / or drop off> on a movement path that the autonomous movement device 100 memorized, and thereby cause the autonomous movement device 100 to move more flexibly).
As per claim 9, similar to claim 1, Oshima discloses [a] route generation method for a mobile robot (see at least Oshima, Abstract; [0001]), comprising:
using one or more sensors to collect training data representative of a route or portions of a route as the mobile robot is navigated along the route (see at least Oshima, see Fig. 1, showing sensors 31, surrounding information acquirer 11, the movement path generator 12, the travel route generator 13, the surrounding information converter 14, and the movement controller 15 and route storage 22; [0092]);
providing a user interface to receive user inputs providing route information (see at least Oshima, Fig. 1, showing operation acquirer 32 and Fig. 4; [0095]); and
processing the route information and the training data to generate a route network comprising a plurality of route segments (see at least Oshima, see Fig. 1, showing processor 10, including the surrounding information acquirer 11, the movement path generator 12, the travel route generator 13, the surrounding information converter 14, and the movement controller 15; [0104]-[0107]).
As per claim 10, similar to claim 2, Oshima further discloses the following limitation:
generating the training data while the mobile robot is navigated in a first direction and the mobile robot is configured to autonomously navigate in a second direction that is opposite the first direction (see at least Oshima, [0005]; [0021]; [0130]; [0131]; [0159]; [0167]-[0168]).
As per claim 13, similar to claim 5, Oshima further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the route information includes one or more destinations at which the mobile robot is to perform at least one task (see at least Oshima, [0175]; [0176]).
As per claim 14, similar to claim 6, Oshima further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the at least one task includes a load pick up and/or a load drop off (see at least Oshima, [0175]; [0176]).
As per claim 17, Oshima further discloses the following limitation:
comprising the automatic placement of behaviors (see at least Oshima, [0126]; [0133] disclosing that the movement path generator 13 generates a movement path from the present location of the autonomous movement device 100 to a destination (step S204). Step S204 is also referred to as a movement path generation step. In this processing, any point registered in the point storage 21 can be selected as the destination. When only two points are registered in the point storage 21 and one the two points is the present location, the destination is the other point, which is not the present location. In the other cases, the user is required to input which one of the registered points (except the present location) is selected as a destination, from the operation acquirer 32; [0134] disclosing that the movement path generator 13 generates a movement path from the present location to the destination based on the route data recorded in the route storage 22 <interpreted as the automatic placement of behaviors>. Any generation method can be employed for the generation of a movement path).
As per claim 20, Oshima further discloses the following limitation:
providing a user interface to receive user inputs providing behavior information (see at least Oshima, [0095] disclosing that the operation acquirer 32 includes a joystick and the like that serve as input devices, and acquires a user operation. The operation acquirer 32 functions as operation acquisition means. As illustrated in FIG. 4, the operation acquirer 32 includes a lever 321 and a touch panel 322 that is integrated with a display panel. The user can instruct the autonomous movement device 100 on a travel direction and movement velocity by a direction in which the user tilts the lever 321 and a tilt amount (tilt angle), respectively. In addition, on the touch panel 322, an operation menu that serves as a user interface (UI) through which an instruction from the user is accepted (a menu for performing setting of a maximum velocity, a maximum acceleration, and the like and selection of a setting value for each thereof, specification of a destination, movement stop instruction, instruction of start and end of teaching, playback, playback correction, reverse playback, auto-determination playback, loop playback, or the like, selection of a movement mode (an autonomous movement mode, a manual movement mode, or the like), and the like) is displayed, and the user can provide the autonomous movement device 100 with each instruction by touching one of the instructions in the operation menu. The operation acquirer 32 functions as operation acquisition means; [0096]).
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 non-obviousness.
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 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0121365 to Passot et al. (hereafter Passot).
As per claim 3, Oshima discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, the difference between Oshima and the claimed invention is that Oshima does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Passot, a comparable system where it was known to have:
wherein the route generator and user interface are configured to cooperatively generate a display of one or more of the route segments (see at least Passot, [0132] disclosing that robot 102 can begin teaching phase 414 by receiving an input from input 574 in user interface 500 illustrated in FIG. 5A. User interface 500 can appear on display 576, which can be a mobile device, specialized device, or any other device with a screen and configured to accept a user input. In some cases, display 576 can be part of user interface units 322 of robot 102. In some cases, display 576 can be a separate display communicatively coupled to robot 102, such as, without limitation, communicatively coupled through communication units 316 of robot 102. Input 574 can include buttons, radio buttons, pull-down menus, text input, and/or any way for a user to put in information and/or commands known in the art. User interface 500 can also include input 572, which can be used to initiate autonomous phase 416, which will be described later in this disclosure. Input 572 can include buttons, radio buttons, pull-down menus, text input, or any way for a user to input information and/or commands known in the art).
Oshima and Passot are analogous art to claim 3 because they are in the same field of route generation and following. Oshima relates to an autonomous movement device, an autonomous movement method, and a program (see Oshima, [0001]). Passot relates to systems and methods for training and operating a robot to autonomously travel a route (see Passot, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the system, as disclosed in Oshima, to provide the benefit of cooperatively generate a display of one or more of the route segments, as disclosed in Passot, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
As per claim 11, similar to claim 3, Oshima discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, as shown above. But, the difference between Oshima and the claimed invention is that Oshima does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Passot, a comparable method where it was known to have.
generating a display for presentation via the user interface device of one or more of the route segments (see at least Passot, [0132]).
Oshima and Passot are analogous art to claim 11 because they are in the same field of route generation and following. Oshima relates to an autonomous movement device, an autonomous movement method, and a program (see Oshima, [0001]). Passot relates to systems and methods for training and operating a robot to autonomously travel a route (see Passot, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the method, as disclosed in Oshima, to provide the benefit of generating a display for presentation via the user interface device of one or more of the route segments, as disclosed in Passot, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0129346 to Haus et al. (hereafter Haus).
As per claim 4, Oshima disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, the difference between Oshima and the claimed invention is that Oshima does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Haus, a comparable system where it was known to have:
wherein the route information includes unnamed nodes used for connecting route segments while generating the route network (see at least Haus, [0064] disclosing that FIGS. 7A-B illustrates an exemplary process by which new control points are added to generate smoothed segment of a primary path, in accordance with some embodiments. In FIG. 7A, the smoothed primary path 700 has been generated based on the original primary path 701. The illustrated segment of the smoothed primary path 700 has been generated based on the four control points 702. However, the smoothed primary path 700 created based on these control points 702 collides 703 with an obstacle. In FIG. 7B, an additional control point 705 is added and a new smoothed primary path 706 is generated based on the new control point).
Oshima and Haus are analogous art to claim 4 because they are in the same field of because they are in the same field of route generation and following. Oshima relates to an autonomous movement device, an autonomous movement method, and a program (see Oshima, [0001]). Haus relates to an autonomous mobile robot uses a capability-aware pathfinding algorithm to traverse from a start pose to an end pose (see Haus, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the system, as disclosed in Oshima, to provide the benefit of having the route information includes unnamed nodes used for connecting route segments while generating the route network, as disclosed in Haus, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
As per claim 12, similar to claim 4, Oshima disclose all of the limitations of claim 9, as shown above. But, the difference between Oshima and the claimed invention is that Oshima does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Haus, a comparable method where it was known to have.
wherein the route information includes unnamed nodes used for connecting route segments as part of generating the route network (see at least Haus, [0064]).
Oshima and Haus are analogous art to claim 12 because they are in the same field of are in the same field of route generation and following. Oshima relates to an autonomous movement device, an autonomous movement method, and a program (see Oshima, [0001]). Haus relates to an autonomous mobile robot uses a capability-aware pathfinding algorithm to traverse from a start pose to an end pose (see Haus, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the method, as disclosed in Oshima, to provide the benefit of having the route information includes unnamed nodes used for connecting route segments while generating the route network, as disclosed in Haus, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0084578 to Sadeghi et al. (hereafter Sadeghi).
As per claim 7, Oshima discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, the difference between Oshima and the claimed invention is that Oshima does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Sadeghi, a comparable system where it was known to have.
wherein the route generator is configured to generate a lane zone for one or more lanes identified in the route information (see at least Sadeghi, [0078] disclosing with regard to Fig. 5 that occupancy grid generator 342 is configured to generate two probabilistic model representations of the environment E of the ego vehicle 100 (e.g. the environment the ego vehicle 100 is operating in) at each time step s based on currently observed ego vehicle state q.sup.t and on historic information, including previously observed vehicle states. These probabilistic models are: (i) a vehicle occupancy grid G.sub.v generated by vehicle occupancy grid generator 402 and (ii) a non-vehicle agent occupancy grid G.sub.p generated by a non-vehicle agent occupancy grid generator 404; [0079] disclosing that Vehicle occupancy grid G.sub.v represents regions of the environment E where the ego vehicle 100 and other vehicles are expected to travel (i.e., road regions), and thus can be restricted to the actual roadway 406. In this regard, based on data included in the road network data (e.g., a road map) and ego vehicle state q.sup.t, the vehicle occupancy grid generator 402 is configured to generate vehicle occupancy grid G.sub.v as a set of cells c.sub.v along the center lines of roadways within environment E of the ego vehicle 100. Each cells c.sub.v in the set of cells maps to a respective physical region of the roadway 406 and may, for example, have a defined length corresponding to a defined vehicle length and a width corresponding to a lane width of the roadway 406).
Oshima and Sadeghi are analogous art to claim 7 because they are in the same field of route generation and following. Oshima relates to an autonomous movement device, an autonomous movement method, and a program (see Oshima, [0001]). Sadeghi relates to occlusion-aware motion planning, and in particular to safe motion planning when a field of view is limited (see at least Sadeghi, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the system, as disclosed in Oshima, to provide the benefit generating a lane zone for one or more lanes identified in the route information, as disclosed in Sadeghi, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
As per claim 8, Oshima discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, the difference between Oshima and the claimed invention is that Oshima does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Sadeghi, a comparable system where it was known to have.
wherein the route generator is configured to generate a grid zone for one or more intersections identified in the route information (see at least Sadeghi, Fig. 6, showing an intersection; [0121] disclosing that with reference to FIG. 6, in example embodiments the analysis of information gain is limited to trajectories that fall within a region of interest (RI). FIG. 6 illustrates a plurality of trajectories for RI (s, T) corresponding to vehicle state q.sup.T. A nominal trajectory T.sub.nom corresponding to future time period [T, 2T] for ego vehicle 100 is also shown. Given a trajectory T.sup.T, 2T, the region of interest RI(s, t), at time s∈[0, T], is a subset of the environment that for an agent at a location c, the reachable set of the agent within time interval [s, t] coincides with the ego vehicle state q.sup.t; [0126] disclosing that the vehicle occupancy grid G.sub.v and non-vehicle agent occupancy grid G.sub.p are unified to provide a unified occupancy grid G by mapping locations in the vehicle occupancy grid G.sub.v to locations in the non-vehicle agent occupancy grid G.sub.p. Further, a candidate vehicle trajectory for the current time horizon interval [0, T] is encoded at an RI encoding operation 702 to generate: (1) a nominal trajectory T.sub.nom for future time horizon interval [T, 2T] (as suggested above, each candidate vehicle trajectory in the current time horizon will have multiple candidate vehicle trajectory in the future time horizon, and accordingly a nominal trajectory is generated to represent all of the multiple candidate vehicle trajectories in order to simplify computing requirements); and (2) a region of interest grid G.sub.RI having a cell topology that corresponds to the unified occupancy grid G and represents grid cells in the current time horizon, at current time step s, that are of interest given the future nominal trajectory T.sub.nom),
wherein a grid zone does not include a lane or a lane zone (see at least Sadeghi, see Fig. 6, showing grid q raised to the T+1 <interpreted as a grid zone that does not include a lane or a lane zone>).
Oshima and Sadeghi are analogous art to claim 8 because they are in the same field of route generation and following. Oshima relates to an autonomous movement device, an autonomous movement method, and a program (see Oshima, [0001]). Sadeghi relates to occlusion-aware motion planning, and in particular to safe motion planning when a field of view is limited (see at least Sadeghi, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the system, as disclosed in Oshima, to provide the benefit generate a grid zone for one or more intersections identified in the route information, and having grid zone that does not include a lane or a lane zone , as disclosed in Sadeghi, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
As per claim 15, similar to claim 7, Oshima discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, as shown above. But, the difference between Oshima and the claimed invention is that Oshima does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Sadeghi, a comparable method where it was known to have:
generating a lane zone for one or more lanes identified in the route information (see at least Sadeghi, [0078]; [0079]).
Oshima and Sadeghi are analogous art to claim 15 because they are in the same field of route generation and following. Oshima relates to an autonomous movement device, an autonomous movement method, and a program (see Oshima, [0001]). Sadeghi relates to occlusion-aware motion planning, and in particular to safe motion planning when a field of view is limited (see at least Sadeghi, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the method, as disclosed in Oshima, to provide the benefit generating a lane zone for one or more lanes identified in the route information, as disclosed in Sadeghi, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill..
As per claim 16, similar to claim 8, Oshima discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, the difference between Oshima and the claimed invention is that Oshima does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Sadeghi, a comparable method where it was known to have:
generating a grid zone for one or more intersections identified in the route information (see at least Sadeghi, Fig. 6 showing an intersection; [0121]; [0126]),
wherein a grid zone does not include a lane or a lane zone (see at least Sadeghi, Fig. 6, showing grid q raised to the T+1 <interpreted as a grid zone that does not include a lane or a lane zone>).
Oshima and Sadeghi are analogous art to claim 16 because they are in the same field of route generation and following. Oshima relates to an autonomous movement device, an autonomous movement method, and a program (see Oshima, [0001]). Sadeghi relates to occlusion-aware motion planning, and in particular to safe motion planning when a field of view is limited (see at least Sadeghi, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the method, as disclosed in Oshima, to provide the benefit generate a grid zone for one or more intersections identified in the route information, and having grid zone that does not include a lane or a lane zone, as disclosed in Sadeghi, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
As per claim 18, Oshima discloses all of the limitations of claim 17, as shown above. But, the difference between Oshima and the claimed invention is that Oshima does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Sadeghi, a comparable method where it was known to have:
wherein the automatic placement of behaviors comprises the placement of intersection entrances (see at least Sadeghi, Fig. 6 showing trajectories RI, that include and show placement of intersection entrances; [0121]).
Oshima and Sadeghi are analogous art to claim 18 because they are in the same field of route generation and following. Oshima relates to an autonomous movement device, an autonomous movement method, and a program (see Oshima, [0001]). Sadeghi relates to occlusion-aware motion planning, and in particular to safe motion planning when a field of view is limited (see at least Sadeghi, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the method, as disclosed in Oshima, to provide the benefit the having automatic placement of behaviors comprise the placement of intersection entrances, as disclosed in Sadeghi, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
As per claim 19, Oshima discloses all of the limitations of claim 17, as shown above. But, the difference between Oshima and the claimed invention is that Oshima does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Sadeghi, a comparable method where it was known to have:
wherein the automatic placement of behaviors comprises the placement of intersection exits (see at least Sadeghi, see at least Sadeghi, Fig. 6 showing trajectories RI, that include and show placement of intersection exits; [0121] ).
Oshima and Sadeghi are analogous art to claim 19 because they are in the same field of route generation and following. Oshima relates to an autonomous movement device, an autonomous movement method, and a program (see Oshima, [0001]). Sadeghi relates to occlusion-aware motion planning, and in particular to safe motion planning when a field of view is limited (see at least Sadeghi, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have modified the method, as disclosed in Oshima, to provide the benefit the having automatic placement of behaviors comprise the placement of intersection exits, as disclosed in Sadeghi, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4;30 pm.
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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/PATRICK M BRADY/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665