DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
No additional information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were submitted for consideration.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 9, 13, 15-16, and 19, are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
No claims are cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claims 1, 9, and 16, are independent claims.
Claims 1-20 will be examined.
This Final Office action is in response to the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks” and “Amended Claims” dated 06/04/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments and amended claims, filed 06/04/2026 with respect to claims 1-20, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s) NANRI et al., US 20200164873, and previously disclosed prior art reference(s) CLAWSON, PURDY, BROWN, WANG I, SHAAG, WANG II and TANG. The grounds for rejection in view of amended claims are provided below.
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, 9-10, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CLAWSON et al., US 11807233, herein further known as Clawson, in view of PURDY et al., US 20250022284, herein further known as Purdy, further in view of NANRI et al., US 20200164873, herein further known as Nanri .
Regarding claim 1, Clawson discloses obtaining a plurality of object indications for a plurality of objects in a driving environment (column 7, lines 15-55, receive a plurality of object states (e.g., object state data) associated with object(s) in the environment) of an autonomous vehicle (AV) (column 1, column 4, lines 40-41), wherein each object indication of the plurality of object indications (column 7, lines 15-55) comprises: a shape definition (column 14, lines 40-45, column 17, lines 25-35, column 20, lines 4-13, object size, column 22, line 5, and column 21, line 51, object position cone) of the corresponding object of the plurality of objects (column 7, lines 15-55), and one or more predicted future locations of the corresponding object (column 7, lines 3-15, column 9, 45-52, column 11, lines 50-65, intersection predictions/probabilities); projecting, for each object of the plurality of objects, the shape definition of the corresponding object onto each predicted future location of the one or more predicted future locations of the corresponding object (column 4, lines 40-60, potential for intersection, column 6, lines 34-53, column 9, lines 28-44, column 11, lines 3-22, potential collision); determining, based on projected shape definitions of the plurality of objects, that projected shape definitions of at least two objects of the plurality of objects overlap (column 21, lines 39-45, column 22, lines 35-50); and responsive to an overlap between the projected shape definitions of the least two objects meeting a collision criterion (columns 21-22), modifying operation of the AV to avoid an area of the overlapped projected shape definitions of the least two objects (column 22, line 66 thru column 23, line 22, determine one or more actions for the vehicle to take, include slowing the vehicle to yield to the object, stopping the vehicle to yield to the object, changing lanes or swerving left, or changing or swerving lanes right, etc.).
Furthermore, Purdy teaches a shape definition (¶¶ [0014-0022], [0028-0037], [0048-0058], bounding contour) of the corresponding object of the plurality of objects (¶¶ [0016-0017], [0020-0022], [0028-0033] bounding boxes, bounding contour, static and dynamic objects), projected shape definitions (¶¶ [0014-0022], [0028-0037], [0048-0058], bounding contour) of the least two objects meeting a collision criterion (¶¶ [0019], bounding contour can be used, for example, in a planning component of a vehicle to determine whether the vehicle is likely to collide with the object represented by the bounding contour, [0052], bounding contour 308 may be used to plan routes/trajectories for the autonomous vehicle that may avoid collisions and maintain a safe distance, [0054], bounding contour 308 may be used when generating or validating a trajectory of the autonomous vehicle for a possible interaction (e.g., collision or near-miss collision).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Clawson the shape definition of the corresponding object of the plurality of objects and projected shape definitions of the least two objects meeting a collision criterion as taught by Purdy.
One would be motivated to modify Clawson in view of Purdy for the reasons stated in Purdy paragraph [0017], more robust method and system for image-based bounding contour generation techniques which provide improvements in detecting and contouring objects, including small objects low to the ground which may be difficult to distinguish, and provide advantages in object classification, where the image data may be provided to trained convolutional neural networks.
However, Clawson does not explicitly state objects that are distinct from the AV overlap with each other.
Nanri teaches objects that are distinct from the AV overlap with each other (¶ [0038], see also FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Clawson the objects that are distinct from the AV overlap with each other as taught by Nanri.
One would be motivated to modify Clawson in view of Nanri for the reasons stated in Nanri paragraph [0004, 0006], more robust methods and systems to improve the accuracy of predicting the action of the other vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Clawson, Purdy, and Nanri disclose/teach all limitations of claim 1 above.
However Clawson does not explicitly state each shape definition of the corresponding object of the plurality of objects comprises a top-down polygon outline of the corresponding object.
Purdy teaches each shape definition of the corresponding object of the plurality of objects comprises a top-down polygon outline of the corresponding object (¶ [0029]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Clawson the each shape definition of the corresponding object of the plurality of objects comprises a top-down polygon outline of the corresponding object as taught by Purdy.
One would be motivated to modify Clawson in view of Purdy for the reasons stated in Purdy paragraph [0017], more robust method and system for image-based bounding contour generation techniques which provide improvements in detecting and contouring objects, including small objects low to the ground which may be difficult to distinguish, and provide advantages in object classification, where the image data may be provided to trained convolutional neural networks.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Clawson, Purdy, and Nanri, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 1 above.
Clawson discloses further one or more predicted future locations of the corresponding object comprises a trajectory of the corresponding object (column 1, line 60, one or more predicted trajectories and/or speeds of the object, column 2 line 50-70, object state data includes a trajectory of the object at a current time, column 5, lines 5-15, generate trajectories).
Regarding claim 9, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 1. The apparatus/system taught/disclosed in claim 9 can clearly perform the methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 2. The apparatus/system taught/disclosed in claim 10 can clearly perform the methods of claim 2. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 16, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 1. The methods taught/disclosed in claim 16 can clearly perform the methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Clawson, Purdy, and Nanri, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 16 above.
Clawson discloses further the first object comprises a mobile object (column 19, lines 50-55); and the second object comprises a stationary object (column 17, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 18, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 2. The methods taught/disclosed in claim 18 can clearly perform the methods of claim 2. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Clawson, Purdy, and Nanri, in view of BROWN et al., US 20250242803, herein further known as Brown.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Clawson, Purdy, and Nanri, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 1 above.
Clawson discloses collision criterion (columns 21-22) associated with an object of the at least two objects (column 2, lines 25-60, see also FIG. 1, an example environment, in which an example vehicle applies a model to predict an intersection value indicating a likelihood for collision with one or more example objects) and predicted future location of the object (column 1, lines 50-65, predicted trajectories, column 17, starting at line 61, predicted trajectories, see also FIG. 4, models determine intersect probabilities indicating a likelihood for one or more example objects to collide with an example vehicle).
However, Clawson does not explicitly state collision criterion comprises a confidence value associated with an object of the at least two objects being above a threshold confidence value, wherein the confidence value indicates a level of confidence associated with at least one of: a predicted future location of the object; or a shape of the shape definition of the object.
Brown teaches collision criterion comprises a confidence value associated with an object of the at least two objects being above a threshold confidence value, wherein the confidence value indicates a level of confidence associated with at least one of: a predicted future location of the object; or a shape of the shape definition of the object (¶ [0013], trajectory confidence, (i.e. future location of the object), [0033-0038], predicted trajectory, collision confidence, collision threshold, [0042], model confidence of the ML predicted trajectory, (i.e. future location of the object) [0043], generate collision confidence, collision threshold, claims 1-7).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Clawson the collision criterion comprises a confidence value associated with an object of the at least two objects being above a threshold confidence value, wherein the confidence value indicates a level of confidence associated with at least one of: a predicted future location of the object; or a shape of the shape definition of the object as taught by Brown.
One would be motivated to modify Clawson in view of Brown for the reasons stated in Brown paragraph [0002], mor robust methods and systems that can provide predictive vehicle control based on the prediction of vehicle trajectory and collisions intended to mitigate accident risks, improve traffic flow with minimal congestion, and reduce travel times.
Regarding claim 11, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 3 and 4. The apparatus/system taught/disclosed in claim 11 can clearly perform the methods of claim 3 and 4. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 and 4 above.
Regarding claim 19, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 3 and 4. The apparatus/system taught/disclosed in claim 19 can clearly perform the methods of claim 3 and 4. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 and 4 above.
Claim(s) 5, and 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Clawson, Purdy, and Nanri, in view of WANG et al., US 20240119857, herein further known as Wang I.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Clawson, Purdy, and Nanri, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 1 above.
Clawson discloses collision criterion (columns 21-22) comprises the projected shape definitions (column 14, lines 40-45, column 17, lines 25-35, column 20, lines 4-13, object size, column 22, line 5, and column 21, line 51, object position cone).
However, Clawson does not explicitly state the at least two objects overlapping by a threshold amount.
Wang I teaches the at least two objects overlapping by a threshold amount (¶ [0035], polygons overlapping with shape as a vehicle dimension… exceeds a threshold value).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Clawson the at least two objects overlapping by a threshold amount as taught by Wang I.
One would be motivated to modify Clawson in view of Wang I for the reasons stated in Wang I paragraph [0004-0005], more robust systems and methods to improve the training of a scene simulator for rendering 2D scenes using data from real and simulated agents (e.g., vehicles), and improves model estimates by training the simulator with a diverse dataset, thereby reducing costs for model implementation.
Furthermore, Purdy teaches collision criterion (¶¶ [0019], bounding contour can be used, for example, in a planning component of a vehicle to determine whether the vehicle is likely to collide with the object represented by the bounding contour, [0052], bounding contour 308 may be used to plan routes/trajectories for the autonomous vehicle that may avoid collisions and maintain a safe distance, [0054], bounding contour 308 may be used when generating or validating a trajectory of the autonomous vehicle for a possible interaction (e.g., collision or near-miss collision) comprises the projected shape definitions (¶¶ [0014-0022], [0028-0037], [0048-0058], bounding contour).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Clawson the collision criterion comprises the projected shape definitions as taught by Purdy.
One would be motivated to modify Clawson in view of Purdy for the reasons stated in Purdy paragraph [0017], more robust method and system for image-based bounding contour generation techniques which provide improvements in detecting and contouring objects, including small objects low to the ground which may be difficult to distinguish, and provide advantages in object classification, where the image data may be provided to trained convolutional neural networks.
Regarding claim 12, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 5. The apparatus/system taught/disclosed in claim 12 can clearly perform the methods of claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Clawson, Purdy, and Nanri, in view of SHAAG et al., US 20260015009, herein further known as Shaag.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Clawson, Purdy, and Nanri, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 1 above.
Clawson discloses collision criterion comprises the overlapped projected shape definitions of the least two objects (column 22, line 66 thru column 23, line 22).
However, Clawson does not explicitly state distance between the AV and the least two objects being less than a threshold distance.
Shaag teaches distance between the AV and the at least two objects being less than a threshold distance (¶ [0288], uphold a minimum predefined distance (such as a meter or less) between host vehicle 800 and the three-dimensional representations of bounding boxes 2025 and 2035 in real-world coordinates).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Clawson the distance between the AV and the least two objects being less than a threshold distance as taught by Shaag.
One would be motivated to modify Clawson in view of Shaag for the reasons stated in Shaag paragraph [0005], more robust methods and system which enable improved autonomous navigation relative to a road segment, and Shaag paragraph [0213], result in more accurate range and/or height perception and improved overall performance.
Regarding claim 13, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 6. The apparatus/system taught/disclosed in claim 13 can clearly perform the methods of claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 6. The apparatus/system taught/disclosed in claim 20 can clearly perform the methods of claim 6. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 7, and 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Clawson, Purdy, and Nanri, in view of WANG et al., US 20250285536, herein further known as Wang II.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Clawson, Purdy, and Nanri, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 1 above.
Clawson discloses trajectory of the AV (column 1, column 4, lines 40-41, column 2, predicted trajectories).
However, Clawson does not explicitly state predicting a trajectory of the at least two objects after a predicted collision of the at least two objects; and the collision criterion comprises the trajectory of the at least two objects after the predicted collision intersecting a trajectory of the AV.
Wang II teaches predicting a trajectory of the at least two objects after a predicted collision of the at least two objects; and the collision criterion comprises the trajectory of the at least two objects after the predicted collision intersecting a trajectory (¶ [0102], predicts its own trajectory, as well as the trajectory of involved vehicle 604, during the 10 seconds prediction horizon after the collision) of the AV (¶ [0102]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Clawson the predicting a trajectory of the at least two objects after a predicted collision of the at least two objects; and the collision criterion comprises the trajectory of the at least two objects after the predicted collision intersecting a trajectory as taught by Wang II.
One would be motivated to modify Clawson in view of Wang II for the reasons stated in Wang II more robust methods and systems which safely reserve the geographic area for the detected conflict and the determined trajectory which avoids a second conflict.
Regarding claim 14, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 7. The apparatus/system taught/disclosed in claim 14 can clearly perform the methods of claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Claim(s) 8, and 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Clawson, Purdy, and Nanri, in view of TANG et al., CN 109841088, herein further known as Tang.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Clawson, Purdy, and Nanri, disclose/teach all limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Clawson does not explicitly state obtaining a number of overlaps between the projected shape definitions of the at least two objects within a previous amount of time; and the collision criterion comprises the number of overlaps being above a threshold value.
Tang teaches obtaining a number of overlaps between the projected shape definitions of the at least two objects within a previous amount of time; and the collision criterion comprises the number of overlaps being above a threshold value (page 9, paragraph 1, number of overlapped event to be collision confidence level value. when the collision confidence level value exceeds a predetermined threshold value, the collision occurrence probability is higher) .
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Clawson the obtaining a number of overlaps between the projected shape definitions of the at least two objects within a previous amount of time; and the collision criterion comprises the number of overlaps being above a threshold value as taught by Tang.
One would be motivated to modify Clawson in view of Tang for the reasons stated in Tang, more robust methods and systems, under the condition of collision prediction, which can eliminate almost impossible collision condition, so as to improve the calculation efficiency.
Regarding claim 15, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 8. The apparatus/system taught/disclosed in claim 15 can clearly perform the methods of claim 8. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/JESS WHITTINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights