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 .
Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because Fig. 3 fails to show unambiguously the elements 350 and 360 as described in the specification. It is unclear whether 360 is pointing to the black line or to the grey stripe. Similarly, it is unclear whether 350 is pointing to the black line or to the grey stripe. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). For purposes of examination it is assumed that the grey stripe corresponds to a center line of the lane and should be labeled with “150”. Similarly, it is assumed that the black line running between 391 and 399 corresponds to the driving path 360.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 495 in Fig. 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0061]: contains the term “autonomous control apparatus 100” two times. Earlier and later, 100 has been used to label “vehicle control apparatus 100”. Inconsistency in nomenclature is to be avoided.
[0078]: “The controller 130 ma update…” should be “The controller 130 may update…”
[0078]: “…the just previous cycle…” should be “…the immediately previous cycle…”
[0110]: what exactly does this paragraph mean? Should this be “As an example, as the center of gravity 399 of the host vehicle 301 gets closer to a first path 361 and further away from the center line 350, the lateral offset may increase from 0 to 1”?
[0111]: Similarly, should this paragraph be “As an example, as the center of gravity 399 of the host vehicle 301 gets closer to a second path 362 and further away from the center line 350, the lateral offset may decrease from 0 to -1”?
[0119]-[0126] describes the elements of Fig. 4. However, 495 is missing from the description.
[0125]: Equation 11 from [0125] has been fused together with the first sentence of [0125] and needs to be corrected. It looks like the first part of “For example” has been truncated.
[0125]: The equations for Y and beta need to be corrected and the paragraph reformatted. The equation for Y segues into “quation 13]”. The appropriate layout for equations in a specification should have the equations on the left with a corresponding “[equation [number]]” on the right hand side of the same line.
[0136]: “FIGS. 6A to FIG. 6C is conceptual diagrams….” should be “FIGS. 6A to FIG. 6C are conceptual diagrams….”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-2, 6, 8, 11-12,16,and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20200341474 (Zuo) in light of US 11,390,300 B2 (Phillips et al., hence Phillips.)
As for claim 1, Zuo teaches a vehicle control apparatus comprising: a sensor (Zuo: "A perception module of the autonomous driving system is configured to sense the surrounding of the autonomous vehicle using sensors such as camera, radar and LiDAR and to identify the objects around the autonomous vehicle."[0028]; [025] seems to indicate it's using a HD map. But it also uses a perception module 0028]);
memory storing at least one instruction (Zuo: "The device may include: a processor; and a memory for storing instructions executable by the processor;"[0005]);
and a controller operatively coupled with the sensor and the memory, wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: (Zuo: "The device may include: a processor; and a memory for storing instructions executable by the processor;"[0005]);
obtain, using the sensor: environmental information about a surrounding environment of a vehicle that is driving, and driving information of the vehicle (Zuo: "A perception module of the autonomous driving system is configured to sense the surrounding of the autonomous vehicle using sensors such as camera, radar and LiDAR and to identify the objects around the autonomous vehicle."[0028]; "driving information": can include location, which is also found: "A localization module of the autonomous driving system helps an autonomous vehicle to know where exactly it is,"[0027]);
determine a plurality of boundary paths for driving of the vehicle, based on at least one of the environmental information, the driving information, or a maximum drivable curvature of the vehicle (Zuo: "Step 202: defining an envelope based on the information of the external environment, wherein the envelope defines a predicted travelable region of the vehicle in a subsequent predetermined time period" (Fig. 4));
[and] determine, based on a curvature for the vehicle to drive to a destination, an expected driving path (Zuo: "...generating a reference path for the subsequent predetermined time period based on the envelope;" [0004]);
Zuo does not specifically teach [to] determine, based on the expected driving path being located within the plurality of boundary paths, a steering angle for following the expected driving path; or [to] update the expected driving path based on the determined steering angle, the environmental information, and the driving information; and control, based on the updated expected driving path, the vehicle. However, Phillips teaches [to] determine, based on the expected driving path being located within the plurality of boundary paths, a steering angle for following the expected driving path (Phillips: "As described herein, the plurality of candidate trajectories can be executable trajectories that are dynamically feasible for the autonomous vehicle (and/or a vehicle model)."(Col 6, lines 9-12) ; "A trajectory can be defined by a spatial path and/or steering qualities...steering qualities can include, but are not limited to, the first and second derivative of curvature, steering angle, steering angle velocity, angular velocity, lateral speed, lateral acceleration, lateral jerk, derivatives with respect to arc length, and so on." (Col 6, lines 14-22). The trajectories are then each tagged with a cost function (Col. 8 lines 5-34). The lowest cost trajectory is then the candidate trajectory (Col. 13, lines 53-59);
update the expected driving path based on the determined steering angle, the environmental information, and the driving information (Phillips: This trajectory is then optimized for flatness/smoothness (Col 13 line 60-col 14 line 38). Under BRI, "Updating the expected driving path" can be the optimization step or the lowest cost trajectory step mentioned above or simply determining the trajectory at the next time step. The "environmental information" can be object detection: "The vehicle computing system can access sensor data to determine the shape, object type, position, and future path of one or more objects...If the vehicle computing system determines that the autonomous vehicle will collide with an object while following a particular trajectory, the vehicle computing system (e.g., the scoring system) can generate a cost modifier for that particular trajectory that results in the particular trajectory having an increased cost (and is thus less likely to be selected)." (Col. 9 lines 4-25); and control, based on the updated expected driving path, the vehicle. (Phillips: "In another example, once a trajectory has been chosen and optimized, the motion planning system 202 can transmit the trajectory to a vehicle controller 240. The vehicle controller 240 can use the selected trajectory to generate one or more motion controls for the autonomous vehicle. By way of example, the vehicle controller 240 can translate a trajectory into instructions for controlling the autonomous vehicle including adjusting the steering of the vehicle "X" degrees, adjusting a throttle for speed, and/or applying a certain magnitude of braking force. The vehicle controller 240 can transmit those motion controls to the autonomous vehicle to be executed and follow the selected trajectory."[Col. 27 lines 45-56]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the explanation of Phillips for updating the expected driving path and controlling the vehicle following Zuo, who provides the first half of the necessary steps up to defining the driving path. Once a driving path has been defined, implementing the updating of it by an autonomous vehicle and using it for controlling the vehicle is known in the art, as is shown by Phillips. The motivation would be to include a complete description as to the determination of the trajectory and movement of the vehicle.
As for claim 2, Zuo, as modified by Phillips, teaches wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to determine the expected driving path by: determining the expected driving path further based on at least one of a driving distance in which the vehicle moves from a specified point of a lane, a lateral offset from a center line of the lane to a center of gravity of the vehicle, a yaw rate of the vehicle, a driving speed of the vehicle, or acceleration of the vehicle, wherein the yaw rate is identified with respect to a direction of the center line. (Phillips: "As further described herein, the cost function(s) can consider vehicle dynamics parameters ( e.g., to keep the ride smooth, acceleration, jerk, etc.) and/or map parameters (e.g., speed limits, stops, travel way boundaries, etc.)" Col. 8, lines 10-14. (the cost of a trajectory is used when judging which trajectory to choose. (Col. 13, lines 52-59))
As for claim 6, Zuo, as modified by Phillips, teaches wherein the driving information comprises curvature information, and wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to update the expected driving path by: updating the curvature information, based on at least one of the determined steering angle, a slip angle at which the vehicle rotates with respect to a driving direction of the vehicle, a distance from a center of gravity of the vehicle to front wheels of the vehicle, a distance from the center of gravity of the vehicle to rear wheels of the vehicle, or a driving speed of the vehicle; and updating, based on the updated curvature information, the expected driving path. (Phillips: Fig. 12 showing the updating of a trajectory. "A trajectory can be defined by a spatial path and/or steering quantities. A spatial path may be a vector-valued (e.g., x, y, yaw) continuous function of arc length. Curvature is a value that can be derived from the continuous function. Steering qualities can include, but are not limited to, the first and second derivative of curvature, steering angle, steering angle velocity angular velocity, lateral speed, lateral acceleration, lateral jerk, derivatives with respect to arc length, and so on." (Col. 6, lines 14-22). The angular velocity can be considered “a driving speed of the vehicle”. The curvature information is mentioned above.)
As for claim 8, Zuo, as modified by Phillips, teaches wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to determine the expected driving path by: identifying, based on the environmental information, at least one external object within a threshold distance from the vehicle; determining the plurality of boundary paths, further based on a probability of a collision with the at least one external object (Phillips: Fig. 8B shows an envelope of trajectories which avoid a (moving) object; Fig. 10A shows the incorporation of a threshold distance from a vehicle in the judging);
and determining one of the plurality of boundary paths to be the expected driving path, based on at least one of: the expected driving path being located outside the plurality of boundary paths, or a determination that the vehicle is on a collision course with the at least one external object. (Phillips: "For example, if the other object is a person on a bicycle 852, the trajectory can be scored such that if an example trajectory passes within a buffer distance, the cost can be high ( e.g., based on the increased danger of a collision)." (Col. 29, lines 36-40). Note that high cost of a trajectory means that it will not be picked: "The scoring system 220 can select a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle based, at least in part, on the determined costs for each respective trajectory. By way of example, once all of the candidate trajectories have been scored to generate an associated cost, the scoring system 220 ( e.g., the motion planning system) can select the trajectory that has the lowest calculated cost." Col. 27 lines 20-26.)
As for claim 11, Zuo teaches a vehicle control method comprising: obtaining, by a controller and using a sensor: (Zuo: "A perception module of the autonomous driving system is configured to sense the surrounding of the autonomous vehicle using sensors such as camera, radar and LiDAR and to identify the objects around the autonomous vehicle."[0028]; [025] seems to indicate it's using a HD map. But it also uses a perception module 0028]);
environmental information about a surrounding environment of a vehicle that is driving, and driving information of the vehicle (Zuo: "A perception module of the autonomous driving system is configured to sense the surrounding of the autonomous vehicle using sensors such as camera, radar and LiDAR and to identify the objects around the autonomous vehicle."[0028]; "driving information": can include location, which is also found: "A localization module of the autonomous driving system helps an autonomous vehicle to know where exactly it is,"[0027]);
determining a plurality of boundary paths for driving of the vehicle, based on at least one of the environmental information, the driving information, or a maximum drivable curvature of the vehicle (Zuo: "Step 202: defining an envelope based on the information of the external environment, wherein the envelope defines a predicted travelable region of the vehicle in a subsequent predetermined time period" (Fig. 4));
[and] determining, based on a curvature for the vehicle to drive to a destination, an expected driving path (Zuo: "...generating a reference path for the subsequent predetermined time period based on the envelope;" [0004]);
Zuo does not specifically teach determining, by the controller and based on the expected driving path being located within the plurality of boundary paths, a steering angle for following the expected driving path; or updating, by the controller, the expected driving path based on the determined steering angle, the environmental information, and the driving information; and controlling, by the controller and based on the updated expected driving path, the vehicle.
However, Phillips teaches teach determining, by the controller and based on the expected driving path being located within the plurality of boundary paths, a steering angle for following the expected driving path (Phillips: "As described herein, the plurality of candidate trajectories can be executable trajectories that are dynamically feasible for the autonomous vehicle (and/or a vehicle model)."(Col 6, lines 9-12) ; "A trajectory can be defined by a spatial path and/or steering qualities...steering qualities can include, but are not limited to, the first and second derivative of curvature, steering angle, steering angle velocity, angular velocity, lateral speed, lateral acceleration, lateral jerk, derivatives with respect to arc length, and so on." (Col 6, lines 14-22). The trajectories are then each tagged with a cost function (Col. 8 lines 5-34). The lowest cost trajectory is then the candidate trajectory (Col. 13, lines 53-59); under BRI “controller” can be the vehicle computing system 112 (See Fig. 1) ;
updating, by the controller, the expected driving path based on the determined steering angle, the environmental information, and the driving information (Phillips: This trajectory is then optimized for flatness/smoothness (Col 13 line 60-col 14 line 38). Under BRI, "Updating the expected driving path" can be the optimization step or the lowest cost trajectory step mentioned above or simply determining the trajectory at the next time step. The "environmental information" can be object detection: "The vehicle computing system can access sensor data to determine the shape, object type, position, and future path of one or more objects...If the vehicle computing system determines that the autonomous vehicle will collide with an object while following a particular trajectory, the vehicle computing system (e.g., the scoring system) can generate a cost modifier for that particular trajectory that results in the particular trajectory having an increased cost (and is thus less likely to be selected)." (Col. 9 lines 4-25);
and controlling, by the controller and based on the updated expected driving path, the vehicle. (Phillips: "In another example, once a trajectory has been chosen and optimized, the motion planning system 202 can transmit the trajectory to a vehicle controller 240. The vehicle controller 240 can use the selected trajectory to generate one or more motion controls for the autonomous vehicle. By way of example, the vehicle controller 240 can translate a trajectory into instructions for controlling the autonomous vehicle including adjusting the steering of the vehicle "X" degrees, adjusting a throttle for speed, and/or applying a certain magnitude of braking force. The vehicle controller 240 can transmit those motion controls to the autonomous vehicle to be executed and follow the selected trajectory."[Col. 27 lines 45-56]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the explanation of Phillips for updating the expected driving path and controlling the vehicle following Zuo, who provides the first half of the necessary steps up to defining the driving path. Once a driving path has been defined, implementing the updating of it by an autonomous vehicle and using it for controlling the vehicle is known in the art, as is shown by Phillips. The motivation would be to include a complete description as to the determination of the trajectory and movement of the vehicle.
As for claim 12, Zuo, as modified by Phillips, teaches wherein the determining of the expected driving path comprises: determining, by the controller, the expected driving path further based on at least one of a driving distance in which the vehicle moves from a specified point of a lane, a lateral offset from a center line of the lane to a center of gravity of the vehicle, a yaw rate of the vehicle, a driving speed of the vehicle, or acceleration of the vehicle, wherein the yaw rate is identified with respect to a direction of the center line. (Phillips: "As further described herein, the cost function(s) can consider vehicle dynamics parameters ( e.g., to keep the ride smooth, acceleration, jerk, etc.) and/or map parameters (e.g., speed limits, stops, travel way boundaries, etc.)" Col. 8, lines 10-14. (the cost of a trajectory is used when judging which trajectory to choose. (Col. 13, lines 52-59))
As for claim 16, Zuo, as modified by Phillips, teaches wherein the driving information comprises curvature information, and wherein the updating of the expected driving path comprises: updating, by the controller, the curvature information, based on at least one of the determined steering angle, a slip angle at which the vehicle rotates with respect to a driving direction of the vehicle, a distance from a center of gravity of the vehicle to front wheels of the vehicle, a distance from the center of gravity of the vehicle to rear wheels of the vehicle, or a driving speed of the vehicle; and updating, based on the updated curvature information, the expected driving path. (Phillips: Fig. 12 showing the updating of a trajectory. "A trajectory can be defined by a spatial path and/or steering quantities. A spatial path may be a vector-valued (e.g., x, y, yaw) continuous function of arc length. Curvature is a value that can be derived from the continuous function. Steering qualities can include, but are not limited to, the first and second derivative of curvature, steering angle, steering angle velocity angular velocity, lateral speed, lateral acceleration, lateral jerk, derivatives with respect to arc length, and so on." (Col. 6, lines 14-22). The angular velocity can be considered “a driving speed of the vehicle”. The curvature information is mentioned above. The “controller” can be under BRI he vehicle computing system 112 (See Fig. 1)
As for claim 18, Zuo, as modified by Phillips, teaches wherein the determining of the expected driving path comprises: identifying, by the controller and based on the environmental information, at least one external object within a threshold distance from the vehicle; determining, by the controller, the plurality of boundary paths, further based on a probability of a collision with the at least one external object; (Phillips: Fig. 8B shows an envelope of trajectories which avoid a (moving) object; Fig. 10A shows the incorporation of a threshold distance from a vehicle in the judging);
and determining one of the plurality of boundary paths to be the expected driving path, based on at least one of: the expected driving path being located outside the plurality of boundary paths, or a determination that the vehicle is on a collision course with the at least one external object. (Phillips: "For example, if the other object is a person on a bicycle 852, the trajectory can be scored such that if an example trajectory passes within a buffer distance, the cost can be high ( e.g., based on the increased danger of a collision)." (Col. 29, lines 36-40). Note that high cost of a trajectory means that it will not be picked: "The scoring system 220 can select a trajectory for the autonomous vehicle based, at least in part, on the determined costs for each respective trajectory. By way of example, once all of the candidate trajectories have been scored to generate an associated cost, the scoring system 220 ( e.g., the motion planning system) can select the trajectory that has the lowest calculated cost." Col. 27 lines 20-26.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou in light of Phillips as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0373566 (Agarwal et al., hence Agarwal).
As for claim 3, Zou, as modified by Phillips, teaches wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to determine the expected driving path by: determining the expected driving path. (Phillips: "For example, a computing system can include data obtaining unit(s), environment sensing unit(s), motion plan generation unit(s), scoring unit(s), selection unit(s), optimization unit(s) and/or other means for performing the operations and functions described herein."(Col. 15 lines 28-33); Generation of respective trajectory in a plurality of trajectories and use of such: Col. 15 line 63-col 16 line 14). Zou, as modified by Phillips, teaches does not specifically teach determining the expected driving path further based on at least one of: at least one of a real-time lateral offset of the vehicle, a real-time heading of the vehicle, or a real-time curvature of a lane with respect to a specified point of the lane to a center of gravity of the vehicle, or an expected lateral offset of the vehicle, an expected heading of the vehicle, or an expected curvature of the lane with respect to the specified point to the center of gravity, wherein the expected lateral offset, the expected heading, and the expected curvature are determined with respect to a target point. However, Agarwal teaches determining the expected driving path further based on at least one of: at least one of a real-time lateral offset of the vehicle, a real-time heading of the vehicle, or a real-time curvature of a lane with respect to a specified point of the lane to a center of gravity of the vehicle, or an expected lateral offset of the vehicle, an expected heading of the vehicle, or an expected curvature of the lane with respect to the specified point to the center of gravity, wherein the expected lateral offset, the expected heading, and the expected curvature are determined with respect to a target point. (Agarwal: Fig. 1 (expected lateral offset bias 114, candidate trajectory 116 is the expected driving path); Fig. 10 shows the process by which curvature values are used to generate a candidate trajectory.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the techniques outlined in Agarwal in the system of Zou, as modified by Phillips to determine and follow a trajectory. The motivation would be to create a trajectory based on various different parameters of vehicle activity.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou in light of Phillips as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US-2018/0188031 (Samper et al., hence Samper).
As for claim 4, Zou, as modified by Phillips, does not specifically teach wherein the driving information comprises heading information, and wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to update the expected driving path by: updating the heading information, based on at least one of the determined steering angle, a slip angle at which the vehicle rotates with respect to a driving direction of the vehicle, a distance from a center of gravity of the vehicle to front wheels of the vehicle, a distance from the center of gravity of the vehicle to rear wheels of the vehicle, or a driving speed of the vehicle; and updating, based on the updated heading information, the expected driving path. However, this is taught by Samper: (Samper: "In some examples, process 400 can also update the set of instructions (e.g., heading, speed, steering angle, and number of wheel rotations) for completing the planned trajectory based on the vehicle's calibrated vehicle dynamics expectations at step 440 (e.g., as described above with reference to FIGS. 3A-3C)....In another example, process 400 can update the set of instructions for completing the planned trajectory to account for changes in the slip angle for a given steering angle at step 440 ( e.g., as described above with references to FIGS. 3A-3C). "[0024].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to implement updating the vehicle heading, as shown in Samper, when the trajectory is determined in accordance with Zou, as modified by Phillips. The motivation would be to provide further possible parameters to use for the updating of the trajectory.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou in light of Phillips as applied to claim 8 above, and furthermore in light of CN115027464 (Jiang et al., hence Jiang).
As for claim 9, neither Zou, nor Phillips specifically teach wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, further cause the vehicle control apparatus to: determine, based on oriented bounding boxes (OBBs) corresponding to the vehicle and the at least one external object, the probability of the collision between the vehicle and the at least one external object. (Phillips mentions the use of a bounding box for the object in the vicinity of the vehicle (Col. 20, lines 17-31) but does not mention it for the vehicle.) However, Jiang teaches wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, further cause the vehicle control apparatus to: determine, based on oriented bounding boxes (OBBs) corresponding to the vehicle and the at least one external object, the probability of the collision between the vehicle and the at least one external object. (Jiang: See Figs. 2 and 3 for examples involving two bounding boxes. Also see pgs. 3-4 of the machine translation )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to add the techniques of Jiang, involving both bounding boxes for the vehicle and for objects in the vicinity, to the system of Zou, as modified by Phillips. The motivation would be, as Jiang mentions, to be able to quickly determine whether a collision between the vehicle and the object will occur.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou in light of Phillips as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0271245 (Bradley et al., hence Bradley.)
As for claim 10, Zuo, as modified by Phillips, teaches updating, based on the adjusted steering angle, the expected driving path. (Phillips: Fig. 12). Neither Zuo nor Phillips specifically teach wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to update the expected driving path by: adjusting, based on a maximum steering angle of the vehicle and an allowable steering angle change amount range, the determined steering angle. However, Bradley teaches wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to update the expected driving path by: adjusting, based on a maximum steering angle of the vehicle and an allowable steering angle change amount range, the determined steering angle. (Bradley: "For example, the vehicle computing system can filter and/or selectively generate the plurality of trajectories based on vehicle configuration data. To do so, the vehicle computing system can obtain vehicle configuration data associated with the vehicle. The vehicle configuration data, for example, can be indicative of one or more operational and/or physical capabilities of the vehicle. The one or more operational and/or physical capabilities of the vehicle can be utilized to determine one or more vehicle curvature limitations of the vehicle." [0038] "By way of example, the one or more physical capabilities of the vehicle can include a maximum twist steering angle, maximum steering angle velocity, maximum angular velocity, etc. The one or more physical capabilities can be based on one or more physical characteristics (e.g., type of tire, number of doors, weight, wheelbase distance between front and rear axles, front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, etc.) of the vehicle." (underlining added) [0039]. Note that the existence of a maximum steering angle (to the left and to the right) automatically indicates "an allowable steering angle change amount range".)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to add the vehicle parameters as mentioned in Bradley to those mentioned in Zou, as modified by Phillips. The motivation would be to make sure all the possible vehicle parameters used when determining possibly allowable trajectories were identified.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou in light of Phillips as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Agarwal.
As for claim 13, Zou, as modified by Phillips, teaches determining [the] expected driving path. ((Phillips: "For example, a computing system can include data obtaining unit(s), environment sensing unit(s), motion plan generation unit(s), scoring unit(s), selection unit(s), optimization unit(s) and/or other means for performing the operations and functions described herein."(Col. 15 lines 28-33); Generation of respective trajectory in a plurality of trajectories and use of such: Col. 15 line 63-col 16 line 14).) Zou, as modified by Phillips, teaches does not specifically teach determining the expected driving path further based on at least one of: at least one of a real-time lateral offset of the vehicle, a real-time heading of the vehicle, or a real-time curvature of a lane with respect to a specified point of the lane to a center of gravity of the vehicle, or an expected lateral offset of the vehicle, an expected heading of the vehicle, or an expected curvature of the lane with respect to the specified point to the center of gravity, wherein the expected lateral offset, the expected heading, and the expected curvature are determined with respect to a target point. However, Agarwal teaches determining the expected driving path further based on at least one of: at least one of a real-time lateral offset of the vehicle, a real-time heading of the vehicle, or a real-time curvature of a lane with respect to a specified point of the lane to a center of gravity of the vehicle, or an expected lateral offset of the vehicle, an expected heading of the vehicle, or an expected curvature of the lane with respect to the specified point to the center of gravity, wherein the expected lateral offset, the expected heading, and the expected curvature are determined with respect to a target point. (Agarwal: Fig. 1 (expected lateral offset bias 114, candidate trajectory 116 is the expected driving path); Fig. 10 shows the process by which curvature values are used to generate a candidate trajectory.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the techniques outlined in Agarwal in the system of Zou, as modified by Phillips to determine and follow a trajectory. The motivation would be to create a trajectory based on various different parameters of vehicle activity.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou in light of Phillips as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Samper.
As for claim 14, Zou, as modified by Phillips, does not specifically teach wherein the driving information comprises heading information, and wherein the updating of the expected driving path comprises: updating, by the controller, the heading information, based on at least one of the determined steering angle, a slip angle at which the vehicle rotates with respect to a driving direction of the vehicle, a distance from a center of gravity of the vehicle to front wheels of the vehicle, a distance from the center of gravity of the vehicle to rear wheels of the vehicle, or a driving speed of the vehicle; and updating, by the controller and based on the updated heading information, the expected driving path. However, this is taught by Samper: (Samper: "In some examples, process 400 can also update the set of instructions (e.g., heading, speed, steering angle, and number of wheel rotations) for completing the planned trajectory based on the vehicle's calibrated vehicle dynamics expectations at step 440 (e.g., as described above with reference to FIGS. 3A-3C)....In another example, process 400 can update the set of instructions for completing the planned trajectory to account for changes in the slip angle for a given steering angle at step 440 ( e.g., as described above with references to FIGS. 3A-3C). "[0024])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to implement updating the vehicle heading, as shown in Samper, when the trajectory is determined in accordance with Zou, as modified by Phillips. The motivation would be to provide further possible parameters to use for the updating of the trajectory.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou in light of Phillips as applied to claim 8 above, and furthermore in light of Jiang.
As for claim 9, neither Zou, nor Phillips specifically teach determining, by the controller and based on oriented bounding boxes (OBBs) corresponding to the vehicle and the at least one external object, the probability of the collision between the vehicle and the at least one external object. (Phillips mentions the use of a bounding box for the object in the vicinity of the vehicle (Col. 20, lines 17-31) but does not mention it for the vehicle.) However, Jiang teaches determining, by the controller and based on oriented bounding boxes (OBBs) corresponding to the vehicle and the at least one external object, the probability of the collision between the vehicle and the at least one external object. (Jiang: See Figs. 2 and 3 for examples involving two bounding boxes. Also see pgs. 3-4 of the machine translation )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to add the techniques of Jiang, involving both bounding boxes for the vehicle and for objects in the vicinity, to the system of Zou, as modified by Phillips. The motivation would be, as Jiang mentions, to be able to quickly determine whether a collision between the vehicle and the object will occur.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou in light of Phillips as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bradley.
As for claim 20, Zuo, as modified by Phillips, teaches updating, by the controller and based on the adjusted steering angle, the expected driving path. (Phillips: Fig. 12). Neither Zuo nor Phillips specifically teach wherein the updating of the expected driving path comprises adjusting, by the controller and based on a maximum steering angle of the vehicle and an allowable steering angle change amount range, the determined steering angle. However, Bradley teaches wherein the updating of the expected driving path comprises adjusting, by the controller and based on a maximum steering angle of the vehicle and an allowable steering angle change amount range, the determined steering angle. (Bradley: "For example, the vehicle computing system can filter and/or selectively generate the plurality of trajectories based on vehicle configuration data. To do so, the vehicle computing system can obtain vehicle configuration data associated with the vehicle. The vehicle configuration data, for example, can be indicative of one or more operational and/or physical capabilities of the vehicle. The one or more operational and/or physical capabilities of the vehicle can be utilized to determine one or more vehicle curvature limitations of the vehicle." [0038] "By way of example, the one or more physical capabilities of the vehicle can include a maximum twist steering angle, maximum steering angle velocity, maximum angular velocity, etc. The one or more physical capabilities can be based on one or more physical characteristics (e.g., type of tire, number of doors, weight, wheelbase distance between front and rear axles, front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, etc.) of the vehicle." (underlining added) [0039]. Note that the existence of a maximum steering angle (to the left and to the right) automatically indicates "an allowable steering angle change amount range".)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to add the vehicle parameters as mentioned in Bradley to those mentioned in Zou, as modified by Phillips. The motivation would be to make sure all the possible vehicle parameters used when determining possibly allowable trajectories were identified.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 15, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA CHRISTINE SIENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3912. 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.
/TANYA C SIENKO/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664