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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3 and 9 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0148201), hereinafter referred as King, in view of Park et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0115371), hereinafter referred as Park.
Regarding clam 9. King discloses a vehicle control apparatus (Fig. 5) comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 5, #522, #526); and
a memory (Fig. 5, #534, #536) configured to store computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the vehicle control apparatus to:
generate, using a backbone associated with a neural network, a feature based on a bird's eye view (BEV) image obtained by a vehicle;
generate, based on the feature and using the neural network for image detection, detection information indicating a detection result for an object ([0018, 0033, 0038], detecting an object);
generate, based on the feature and using the neural network for image segmentation, a segmentation image ([0018, 0033, 0038], segment the object); and
control, based on the detection information and the segmentation image, the vehicle ([0018, 0019, 0023, 0033], control the vehicle).
However, King fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus wherein generate, using a backbone associated with a neural network, a feature based on a bird's eye view (BEV) image obtained by a vehicle; and the neural network comprises a first neck and a second neck to perform different tasks.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Park discloses a system for vision perception processing (abstract). In addition, Park discloses the system wherein generate, using a backbone associated with a neural network, a feature based on a bird's eye view (BEV) image obtained by a vehicle ([0073 – 0074], “the neural network 210 can include a backbone configured to extract features in the input frames 202”); and the neural network comprises neck ([0074], a neck configured to extract additional features (e.g., more elaborate features, etc.)).
There was some teachings, suggestions, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combines reference teachings to achieve the claimed limitations.
There was reasonable expectation of success to achieve the claimed limitations by modifying the reference or combining reference teachings (KSR scenario G).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of King, and generate, using a backbone associated with a neural network, a feature based on a bird's eye view (BEV) image obtained by a vehicle; and the neural network has a first neck and a second neck to perform different tasks. The motivation for doing this is that the final task "head" can make highly accurate and localized predictions.
Regarding claim 10 (depends on claim 9), King discloses the apparatus wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the vehicle control apparatus to control the vehicle by: determining, based on the segmentation image, a drivable area and a non-drivable area; and controlling, based on the detection information and information about the drivable area and the non-drivable area, the vehicle ([0021 – 0026], detect a predicted collision (non-drivable), control to avoid collision; also determine a non-drivable area [0024]).
Regarding claim 11 (depends on claim 10), King discloses the apparatus wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the vehicle control apparatus to control the vehicle by: determining, based on a heading angle of a first vehicle located in the drivable area, whether the first vehicle is a cross-traffic vehicle ([0021 – 0026], determine a trajectory of a vehicle, whether it will cause collision).
Regarding claims 1 – 3, they are corresponding to claims 9 – 11, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claims 9 – 11.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Park, and in further view of Wray et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0306156), hereinafter referred as Wray.
Regarding claim 12 (depends on claim 10), King fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the vehicle control apparatus to determine a second vehicle to be a parked vehicle based on the second vehicle being located in the non-drivable area.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Wray discloses a system for controlling autonomous driving (abstract). In addition, Wray discloses the system wherein determine a second vehicle to be a parked vehicle based on the second vehicle being located in the non-drivable area ([0251]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of King, and determine a second vehicle to be a parked vehicle based on the second vehicle being located in the non-drivable area. The motivation for doing this is that more different situation can be handled so that the Application of King can be more powerful.
Regarding claim 4, it is corresponding to claim 12, thus, it is interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claim 12.
Claim(s) 5 – 8 and 13 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Park, and in further view of Ha et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0194434), hereinafter referred as Ha.
Regarding claim 13 (depends on claim 10), King fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the vehicle control apparatus to control the vehicle by: determining, based on a speed of the vehicle, a required braking distance; and assigning a first risk level to a first object located in the drivable area and within the required braking distance from the vehicle; and assigning a second risk level, which is lower than the first risk level, to a second object located in the drivable area and beyond the required braking distance from the vehicle.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Ha discloses a system for controlling autonomous driving (abstract). In addition, Ha discloses the system wherein determining, based on a speed of the vehicle, a required braking distance ([0115]); and assigning a first risk level to a first object located in the drivable area and within the required braking distance from the vehicle; and assigning a second risk level, which is lower than the first risk level, to a second object located in the drivable area and beyond the required braking distance from the vehicle ([0115], assign risk level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of King, and determining, based on a speed of the vehicle, a required braking distance; and assigning a first risk level to a first object located in the drivable area and within the required braking distance from the vehicle; and assigning a second risk level, which is lower than the first risk level, to a second object located in the drivable area and beyond the required braking distance from the vehicle. The motivation for doing this is that the control system can be better alerted and controlled.
Regarding claim 14 (depends on claim 10), King discloses the apparatus wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the vehicle control apparatus to control the vehicle by: determining a first factor to a first vehicle located in the drivable area and having a heading angle different at least by a predetermined angle from a heading angle of the vehicle; and determining a second factor, which is lower than the first risk level, to a second vehicle located in the drivable area and having a heading angle different by less than the predetermined angle from the heading angle of the vehicle ([0022 – 0026], determine a possible collision for different vehicles based on trajectory (heading angle)).
However, King fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus wherein assigning risk levels for different trajectory.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Ha discloses a system for controlling autonomous driving (abstract). In addition, Ha discloses the system wherein assigning risk levels ([0115], assign risk level).
There was some teachings, suggestions, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combines reference teachings to achieve the claimed limitations.
There was reasonable expectation of success to achieve the claimed limitations by modifying the reference or combining reference teachings (KSR scenario G).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of King, and assigning risk levels for different trajectory. The motivation for doing this is that the control system can be better alerted and controlled.
Regarding claim 15 (depends on claim 10), King discloses the apparatus wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the vehicle control apparatus to control the vehicle by: determining a first factor to a first pedestrian located in the drivable area; and determining a second factor, which is lower than the first risk level, to a second pedestrian located in the non-drivable area ([0022 – 0026], determine a person; also determine a non-drivable area [0024]).
However, King fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus wherein assigning risk levels for different pedestrian in different area.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Ha discloses a system for controlling autonomous driving (abstract). In addition, Ha discloses the system wherein assigning risk levels ([0115], assign risk level).
There was some teachings, suggestions, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combines reference teachings to achieve the claimed limitations.
There was reasonable expectation of success to achieve the claimed limitations by modifying the reference or combining reference teachings (KSR scenario G).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of King, and assigning risk levels for different pedestrian in different area. The motivation for doing this is that the control system can be better alerted and controlled.
Regarding claim 16 (depends on claim 13), King discloses the apparatus wherein the apparatus further comprises a lidar, and wherein the image is obtained from the lidar ([0018]).
However, King fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus wherein the image is BEV image.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Park discloses a system for vision perception processing (abstract). In addition, Park discloses the system wherein the image is BEV image ([0073 – 0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of King, and the image is BEV image. The motivation for doing this is that the image range can be increased to enhance the power of detection.
Regarding claims 5 – 8, they are corresponding to claims 13 – 16, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claims 13 – 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights