DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to claims filed 12/23/2024.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/7/2025 and 12/23/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 12/23/2024 has been entered.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been underlined.
Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parentheses.
Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a controlled object position calculation unit in claim 1,
an object identification unit in claim 1,
a non-controlled object position calculation unit in claim 1,
a trajectory deviation evaluation unit in claim 1,
a safety level determination unit in claim 1,
a behavior correction unit in claim 1,
a predicted trajectory calculation unit in claim 2,
an actual trajectory evaluation unit in claim 2, and
a trajectory comparison unit in claim 2.
The “units” described supra are interpreted consistent with the Applicant’s substitute specification filed 12/23/2024 in paragraphs [0017] and [0018], with respect to Figure 1, which recites “the autonomous control system A100 includes an environment recognizer A001, a state detector A002, controlled object position calculation unit A003, an object identification unit A004, a non-controlled object position calculation unit A005, a trajectory deviation evaluation unit A006, a safety level determination unit A007, and a vehicle motion computation unit A008. The controlled object position calculation unit A003, the object identification unit A004, the non-controlled object position calculation unit A005, the trajectory deviation evaluation unit A006, the safety level determination unit A007, and the vehicle motion computation unit A008 are functions implemented by a controller A10,” where “[t]he trajectory deviation evaluation unit A006 includes a predicted trajectory calculation unit A006a, an actual trajectory evaluation unit A006b, and a trajectory comparison unit A006c,” as further recited in paragraph [0029].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2, 3, and 6 are 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation of the result. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine the “result,” in light of the claim language. If the “result” is referencing the calculated average value and variance of a trajectory, it is unclear how an average value and variance of a trajectory is set as another trajectory.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 2 by dependency.
Claim 6 recites the limitation of the devices. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, a single “device” for a single “non-controlled object” is provided in preceding claim 5. A plurality of devices cannot be considered an inherent feature of the system.
Claim 6 recites the limitation of the attributes. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, a single “attribute” is determined for a single “non-controlled object” in preceding claim 5. A plurality of attributes for a plurality of non-controlled objects cannot be considered an inherent feature of the system.
Further, claim 6 recites even for non-controlled objects having the same attribute identified by the object identification unit and the same degree of deviation from the predicted movement trajectory as evaluated by the trajectory deviation evaluation unit, if evaluation values for safe behavior set on the devices that allow identification of the attributes of the non-controlled objects are different, the safety level determination unit determines different safety levels. Only one “non-controlled object” is claimed in the preceding claims; therefore, the steps of claim 6, in which “the same attribute” of plural non-controlled objects is identified by the object identification unit and “the same degree of deviation” of plural non-controlled objects is evaluated by the trajectory deviation evaluation unit cannot be reasonably performed, due to the limitations that define the operations of the object identification unit and trajectory deviation evaluation unit in claim 1, with respect to a single “non-controlled object.”
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haynes et al. (US 2021/0255622 A1), hereinafter Haynes.
Claim 1
Haynes discloses the claimed autonomous control system (see Figure 1, depicting vehicle computing system 100 included with vehicle 105 defined as fully autonomous in ¶0052-0054) that, in an area where a controlled object (i.e. vehicle 105) that is a behavior-controllable mobile object and a non-controlled object (i.e. object(s) described as including vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and/or other objects in ¶0061) that is a behavior-uncontrollable mobile object are mixed, controls behavior of the controlled object so that the controlled object and the non-controlled object do not come into contact with each other (see ¶0069, regarding that vehicle computing system 100 causes vehicle 105 to perform motion control in accordance with motion plan 18 that defines the vehicle’s motion such that vehicle 105 avoids the object(s), as described in ¶0067), the autonomous control system comprising:
a controlled object position calculation unit that calculates a position of the controlled object (see ¶0063, regarding that positioning system 150 determines a current position of vehicle 015);
an object identification unit that identifies an attribute of the non-controlled object (see ¶0065, regarding that vehicle computing system 100 generates perception data 170 for each object that describes its size/footprint, class, and associated uncertainties);
a non-controlled object position calculation unit that calculates a position of the non-controlled object (see ¶0065, regarding that vehicle computing system 100 generates perception data 170 for each object that describes its current and/or past positions over period of time);
a trajectory deviation evaluation unit that evaluates a degree of deviation of a movement trajectory of the non-controlled object calculated by the non-controlled object position calculation unit from a predicted movement trajectory of the non-controlled object corresponding to the attribute of the non-controlled object identified by the object identification unit (see ¶0082, regarding that the computing system determines that the current location of the actor (or object) is not consistent with motion forecast data 317, so as to indicate that the actor has entered the unexpected area, where the data received from perception system 160 is used to determine forecast data 317 that describes predicted trajectories of the actor(s), as described in ¶0078; ¶0097-0099, with respect to the example in Figure 5A, depicting the comparison of the actor path 504 to predicted paths 504, 506, 510, 512, 516, and 518, where predicted paths are determined to be sufficiently similar or sufficiently dissimilar to the actual path);
a safety level determination unit that determines a safety level for the behavior of the controlled object on a basis of the attribute of the non-controlled object identified by the object identification unit and the degree of deviation from the predicted movement trajectory evaluated by the trajectory deviation evaluation unit (see ¶0083, regarding that a deviation 324 for controlling a movement of the autonomous vehicle is determined based on the determination that the actor has entered the unexpected area, defined as determining that a current location of the actor is not consistent with motion forecast data 317 in ¶0082, where the data from perception system 160 is used to determine forecast data 317, as described in ¶0078);
a behavior correction unit that corrects the behavior of the controlled object such that the higher the safety level, the less the controlled object approaches the non-controlled object on the basis of the position of the controlled object calculated by the controlled object position calculation unit, the position of the non-controlled object calculated by the non-controlled object position calculation unit, and the safety level determined by the safety level determination unit (see ¶0085-0086, regarding that second motion plan 332 for controlling movement of the autonomous vehicle replaces a first motion plan 330, where second motion plan 332 includes a reaction to the unexpected action in response to determining deviation 324, defined as a corrective action such as braking, swerving, or changing lanes in ¶0083; ¶0103-0104, with respect to the example depicted in Figures 5B and 5C, depicting the unexpected area 546 and associated trajectory as interfering with the trajectory of the vehicle; ¶0067, regarding motion plan 180 includes a planned vehicle trajectory with respect to object(s) within the surrounding environment of vehicle 105, such that vehicle 105 avoids the object(s), where vehicle 105 identifies its position within the surrounding environment, as described in ¶0063).
Haynes may reasonably teach a “higher safety level” when a deviation is determined, such that a second motion plan is used to avoid an obstacle (i.e. “the less the controlled object approaches the non-controlled object”), as opposed to the first motion plan. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the Applicant’s specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Claim 2
Haynes further discloses that the trajectory deviation evaluation unit includes a predicted trajectory calculation unit that calculates an average value and variance of a trajectory on the basis of the attribute of the non-controlled object identified by the object identification unit and the position of the non-controlled object calculated a predetermined time ago by the non-controlled object position calculation unit, and sets the result as the predicted movement trajectory of the non-controlled object (see ¶0101-0103, regarding that a confidence value is established for motion forecast data generated for an actor (or object) that describe a predicted trajectory over a short time interval, such that the unexpected area is defined based on characteristics of the actor and motion forecast data). The “average value” may be reasonably represented by the motion forecast data, and the “variance” may be reasonably represented by the confidence value. See the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding issues with this limitation.
Haynes further discloses that the trajectory deviation evaluation unit includes:
an actual trajectory evaluation unit that evaluates a change in the position of the non-controlled object calculated by the non-controlled object position calculation unit, as the movement trajectory of the non-controlled object (see ¶0065, regarding that vehicle computing system 100 generates perception data 170 for each object that describes its current and/or past positions over period of time); and
a trajectory comparison unit that evaluates the degree of deviation of the movement trajectory of the non-controlled object evaluated by the actual trajectory evaluation unit from the predicted movement trajectory of the non-controlled object calculated by the predicted trajectory calculation unit (see ¶0082, regarding that the computing system determines that the current location of the actor (or object) is not consistent with motion forecast data 317, so as to indicate that the actor has entered the unexpected area, where the data received from perception system 160 is used to determine forecast data 317 that describes predicted trajectories of the actor(s), as described in ¶0078; ¶0097-0099, with respect to the example in Figure 5A, depicting the comparison of the actor path 504 to predicted paths 504, 506, 510, 512, 516, and 518, where predicted paths are determined to be sufficiently similar or sufficiently dissimilar to the actual path).
Claim 3
Haynes further discloses that the predicted trajectory calculation unit calculates the predicted movement trajectory of the non-controlled object on the basis of the attribute of the non-controlled object identified by the object identification unit, using an equation of motion followed by the non-controlled object, a maximum moving speed of the non-controlled object, and a size of the non-controlled object (see ¶0078, regarding that the data received from perception system 160 is used to determine forecast data 317 that describes predicted trajectories of actor(s), where the data received from perception system 160 includes the class, size/footprint, current and/or past speed, acceleration, and heading, and uncertainties of each object, as described in ¶0065; ¶0090, regarding that models are used by the perception system to generate the perception data that is used in generating the motion forecast data that describes predicted trajectories of the actor(s), where a likelihood or confidence of the actor(s) following the predicted trajectory is determined, as described in ¶0039-0040). The “maximum moving speed” may be reasonably inferred from the combination of uncertainties and speed data provided in the perception data for each object. While Haynes does not explicitly recite an “equation of motion,” this feature is reflected in the probabilistic models used in Haynes to predict paths.
Claim 4
Haynes further discloses that if the degree of deviation from the predicted movement trajectory evaluated by the trajectory deviation evaluation unit is greater than a predetermined threshold value, the safety level determination unit changes the safety level to a safer side than a current level, but if behavior of the non-controlled object moving away from the controlled object is observed, the safety level is not changed (see ¶0085-0086, regarding that second motion plan 332 for controlling movement of the autonomous vehicle replaces a first motion plan 330, where second motion plan 332 includes a reaction to the unexpected action in response to determining deviation 324, defined as a corrective action such as braking, swerving, or changing lanes in ¶0083). A “predetermined threshold value” may be reasonably taught by a zero value, where a predicted path sufficiently dissimilar to the actual path generates a deviation, as described in ¶0097-0099, with respect to the example of Figure 5A. A “safer side” may be reasonably taught by the result of the second motion plan 332, given that the first motion plan 330 does not respond to the unexpected action of the object.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes in view of Maeda et al. (US 2022/0144257 A1), hereinafter Maeda.
Claim 5
Haynes discloses that the “attribute” is identified from sensor data 140 and/or map data 145 (see ¶0065) and does not further disclose that the object identification unit identifies the attribute of the non-controlled object using a device, the device being provided on the non-controlled object and allowing identification of the attribute of the non-controlled object. However, in cases when the “non-controlled object” is a vehicle in Haynes (see ¶0065, regarding the object is a vehicle class), it would be obvious to directly send the attribute of the vehicle class object to the “controlled object” of Haynes, in light of Maeda.
Specifically, Maeda teaches a similar system that automatically controls a subject vehicle (similar to the controlled object taught by Haynes) to avoid approaching a nearby vehicle (similar to the non-controlled object taught by Haynes) (see ¶0089-0090) based on a predicted behavior of the nearby vehicle (see ¶0080). Maeda further teaches that received information acquisition unit 212 (similar to the object identification unit taught by Haynes) of the subject vehicle identifies information about travel control, including identification information such as information on a vehicle position of the subject vehicle and a vehicle ID for identifying the subject vehicle (similar to the attribute of the non-controlled object taught by Haynes) using a device, the device being provided on the nearby vehicle and allowing identification of information about travel control of the nearby vehicle (see ¶0060, regarding that autonomous driving function unit 26 of the nearby vehicle transmits information about travel control, including identification information such as information on a vehicle position of the subject vehicle and a vehicle ID for identifying the subject vehicle).
Since the systems of Haynes and Maeda are directed to the same purpose, i.e. modifying autonomous vehicle behavior based on objects including nearby vehicles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the object identification unit of Haynes to identif[y] the attribute of the non-controlled object using a device, the device being provided on the non-controlled object and allowing identification of the attribute of the non-controlled object, in light of Maeda, with the predictable result of acquiring identification information from communications received by nearby vehicles (¶0060 of Maeda) as an alternative to acquiring similar identification information from a vehicle through sensors (¶0065 of Haynes), thus applying a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 6
Due to issues discussed in the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language is relied upon.
Haynes further discloses a plurality of “non-controlled objects” with respective “attributes” (see ¶0065, regarding the objects identified with respect to a particular object class, where the prediction data is indicative of predicted motion trajectories for each object). Modifying one of the plurality of “non-controlled objects” of Haynes to be a vehicle provided with a “device” for transmission of its respective attribute, in light of Maeda, as discussed in the rejection of claim 5, further teaches that even for non-controlled objects having the same attribute identified by the object identification unit and the same degree of deviation from the predicted movement trajectory as evaluated by the trajectory deviation evaluation unit, if evaluation values for safe behavior set on the devices that allow identification of the attributes of the non-controlled objects are different, the safety level determination unit determines different safety levels, given that a nearby vehicle of Maeda is associated with distinct identification information (see ¶0060) and is not derived from a model, as with other objects in ¶0090 of Haynes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Gulino et al. (US 2020/0004259 A1) teaches increasing a buffer around an object in which the autonomous will not encroach in response to higher levels of uncertainty associated with the object (see ¶0044), Green et al. (US 2021/0070286 A1) teaches determining corresponding vehicle models when the actual driving trajectory of a nearby vehicle deviates from the predicted trajectory (see ¶0027), which are used to adjust distances between vehicles (see ¶0056), and Fonseca et al. (US 2022/0161822 A1) teaches the determination of collision between a vehicle and an object using an uncertainty model and radius of its disk (see ¶0050).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661