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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on November 18, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. KR10-2024-0104129, filed on August 5, 2024.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
No action the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 18, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there is no arrow between S550 and S560 of flowchart Fig. 10. It is uncertain if there is one flowchart of Fig. 10 and it is simply an error, or if there are two flowcharts. If there are two flowcharts, it is recommended to have the second flowchart, S560 & S570, be a separate figure (e.g. 10A & 10B). For examiner on the merits, it will be interpreted as one flowchart. 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.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 7, 13, & 17 recite …the unit grids being randomly and uniformly distributed… however, it is uncertain how a unit grid can be both random and uniform. The examiner could not find further explanation in the specification. For examination on its merits, the examiner will interpret this to mean that the nodes themselves are randomly and uniformly distributed such that each node exhibits the same degree of randomness everywhere you look and are not concentrated differently in different areas inside the boundary.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a global path generation method (i.e. a method claim). Claim 13 is directed to a global path generator (i.e. an apparatus). Therefore, claims 1-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case independent claims 1 & 13 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A global path generation method for a wide-area off-road environment in which an unmanned vehicle performs autonomous driving, the global path generation method comprising:
generating an occupancy grid map for a driving area through a sensor;
converting the occupancy grid map into a distance map;
generating a plurality of nodes by sampling unit grids, the unit grids being randomly and uniformly distributed in the driving area of the distance map;
generating a plurality of links connecting the plurality of nodes;
receiving a destination position of the unmanned vehicle; and
generating a global path by connecting optimal links for arriving at the destination position among the plurality of links.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “generating an occupancy grid map for a driving area through a sensor”, “generating a plurality of nodes “, “generating a plurality of links connecting the plurality of nodes”, and “generating a global path by connecting optimal links for arriving at the destination position among the plurality of links” in the context of this claim encompasses creating a map and a path which can be done with pen and paper. “converting the occupancy grid map into a distance map” in the context of the claim encompasses using collected measurements to change a map from one unit to another. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim 13, which is of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, prong I.
101 Analysis – Step2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A global path generation method for a wide-area off-road environment in which an unmanned vehicle performs autonomous driving, the global path generation method comprising:
generating an occupancy grid map for a driving area through a sensor;
converting the occupancy grid map into a distance map;
generating a plurality of nodes by sampling unit grids, the unit grids being randomly and uniformly distributed in the driving area of the distance map;
generating a plurality of links connecting the plurality of nodes;
receiving a destination position of the unmanned vehicle; and
generating a global path by connecting optimal links for arriving at the destination position among the plurality of links.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “by sampling unit grids, the unit grids being randomly and uniformly distributed in the driving area of the distance map” and “receiving a destination position of the unmanned vehicle” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic processors to perform the processes. In particular the “by sampling unit grids” step amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated by gathering data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the “receiving” step amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “receiving a destination position of the unmanned vehicle” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “by sampling unit grids, the unit grids being randomly and uniformly distributed in the driving area of the distance map” and “receiving a destination position of the unmanned vehicle” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “by sampling unit grids, the unit grids being randomly and uniformly distributed in the driving area of the distance map” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) indicate that receiving data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence claim 1 is not patent eligible. Claim 13 is also not patent eligible for the same reasons as stated in the above claim 1 rejection.
Dependent claims 2-12 & 14-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-12 & 14-20, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 1-20 are patent ineligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 13, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0159056 A1, to Cheng et al., hereafter Cheng.
Regarding Claim 1, Cheng discloses A global path generation method for a wide-area off-road environment in which an unmanned vehicle performs autonomous driving, the global path generation method comprising (Cheng [0006]-[0008], Examiner Note: Cheng discloses a path planning apparatus which may be done for a robot or autonomous vehicle):
generating an occupancy grid map for a driving area through a sensor (Cheng [0091], [0109], & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Cheng discloses the navigation information obtained is done via sensing devices. Cheng further discloses obtaining an occupied map (i.e. occupancy map));
converting the occupancy grid map into a distance map (Cheng [0109] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Cheng discloses obtaining a distance map based on the occupancy map);
generating a plurality of nodes by sampling unit grids, the unit grids being randomly and uniformly distributed in the driving area of the distance map (Cheng [0136], Examiner Note: Cheng discloses generating a feature vector which includes a path start point and a sampling goal point (i.e. nodes) on the map grid. Fig. 23 shows an example of how the points can be both uniformly random (e.g. leading to the same parallel paths despite having many different segments to reach those points));
generating a plurality of links connecting the plurality of nodes (Cheng [0136], Examiner Note: Cheng discloses generating a feature vector (i.e. links) which includes a path start point and a sampling goal point (i.e. nodes) on the map grid);
receiving a destination position of the unmanned vehicle (Cheng [0149], Examiner Note: Cheng discloses outputting a final obstacle avoidance path where the destination would be once the obstacle is avoided and the generated path is complete); and
generating a global path by connecting optimal links for arriving at the destination position among the plurality of links (Cheng [0159], Figs. 5-6, Examiner Note: Cheng discloses outputting a candidate path by connecting the vectors. [0165] Cheng goes on to select a final path of the generated candidate paths).
Regarding Claim 4, Cheng discloses The global path generation method of claim 1, wherein the sampled unit grid is a unit grid at a position that secures at least a preset safety distance from an obstacle by reflecting a size of the unmanned vehicle (Cheng [0192], Examiner Note: Cheng discloses taking into consideration the vehicle length (i.e. size), 3-6 meters (i.e. preset safety distance) from an obstacle when determining the optimal traveling path).
Regarding Claim 6, Cheng discloses The global path generation method of claim 1, further comprising forming one global map by connecting of a plurality of distance maps in a tile form including up, down, left, and right boundary lines (Cheng [0207] & Fig. 15, Examiner Note: Cheng discloses connecting multiple grids with four boundaries (i.e. up, down, left, right) into larger map (i.e. global map) from the distance maps).
Regarding Claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 4. Therefore, claim 15 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0159056 A1, to Cheng et al., hereafter Cheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0183408 A1, to Tajeddin et al., hereafter Tajeddin.
Regarding Claim 2, as shown above, Cheng discloses The global path generation method of claim 1,
Cheng further discloses wherein the distance map comprises a drivable area, an obstacle area (Cheng Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Cheng discloses, in the distance map, area which is occupied by obstacles (i.e. obstacle area) and area which is drivable (i.e. driving area)),
However, Cheng does not specifically disclose and a collision area formed between the drivable area and the obstacle area.
Tajeddin, directed to the same problem, teaches and a collision area formed between the drivable area and the obstacle area (Tajeddin [0042]-[0043] & Fig. 5A-Fig. 5B, Examiner Note: Tajeddin teaches a gray area which is distinct and non-overlapping from the obstacle area, 504b, and the drivable area, 504a, which is used to represent minimum obstacle distance (i.e. collision area)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the path planning method of Cheng with the grayscale values on the distance map of Tajeddin in order to determine the distances between location of the mobile apparatus and the obstacles for generating a vector path for the apparatus (Tajeddin [0002]).
Regarding Claim 3, Cheng in view of Tajeddin teaches The global path generation method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of links do not overlap the obstacle area and the collision area (Tajeddin [0042]-[0043] & Fig. 5A-Fig. 5B, as shown above, the obstacle area and the minimum obstacle distance areas are distinct and non-overlapping).
Regarding Claim 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 2 & 3, and it has been determined that claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claims 2 & 3. Therefore, claim 14 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 2 & 3.
Claims 5, 7-12, & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0159056 A1, to Cheng et al., hereafter Cheng as applied to claims 1, 6, & 13 above, and further in view of US 2023/0131553 A1, to Zhang et al., hereafter Zhang.
Regarding Claim 5, Cheng discloses The global path generation method of claim 1,
However, Cheng does not specifically disclose further comprising storing, in a data storage, length information of the plurality of links and a minimum distance among connection distances of the plurality of links when the plurality of links pass through at least one node.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising storing, in a data storage, length information of the plurality of links and a minimum distance among connection distances of the plurality of links when the plurality of links pass through at least one node (Cheng [0194] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Cheng teaches having a closed list of potential successor nodes which are sorted by increasing cost values, the first node (i.e. the minimum) distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the path planning method of Cheng with the node choosing process of Zhang in order to provide an efficient method for planning a path for a self-driving vehicle which is collision-free, kinematically-feasible, and near-minimal in path length (Zhang [0003]).
Regarding Claim 7, Cheng discloses The global path generation method of claim 6, further comprising:
However, Cheng does not specifically teach forming a plurality of boundary nodes by sampling unit grids, the unit grids being randomly and uniformly distributed among grids spanning a boundary line, in drivable areas of the plurality of distance maps; and connecting, by a link of the plurality of links through a boundary node of the plurality of boundary nodes, one node formed in a drivable area of the distance map in the tile form among the plurality of distance maps to another node formed in a drivable area of another distance map connected to the distance map through the boundary line.
Zhang teaches forming a plurality of boundary nodes by sampling unit grids, the unit grids being randomly and uniformly distributed among grids spanning a boundary line, in drivable areas of the plurality of distance maps line (Zhang Fig. 3a, Examiner Note: Zhang teaches nodes which are on the boundary line of multiple cells of a grid); and connecting, by a link of the plurality of links through a boundary node of the plurality of boundary nodes, one node formed in a drivable area of the distance map in the tile form among the plurality of distance maps to another node formed in a drivable area of another distance map connected to the distance map through the boundary (Zhang Fig. 3a, Examiner Note: Zhang teaches using the nodes on the boundary lines in order to link from one cell to another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the path planning method of Cheng with the node choosing process of Zhang in order to provide an efficient method for planning a path for a self-driving vehicle which is collision-free, kinematically-feasible, and near-minimal in path length (Zhang [0003]).
Regarding Claim 8, Cheng, as shown above, discloses The global path generation method of claim 1, wherein the receiving of the destination position of the unmanned vehicle and the generating the global path by connecting of the optimal links for arriving at the destination position among the plurality of links comprises:
Cheng further discloses defining, as a cost, a distance from a start node to a goal node via a current node (Cheng [0155]-[0157], [0197]-[0202] & Fig. 5, Examiner Note: Cheng discloses creating a vector (i.e. distance) from a start point to end point (i.e. node) to create a path which is then given a calculated cost);
However, Cheng does not specifically disclose adding the start node and one or more nodes linked to the start node to a first list; selecting a node having a least cost from the first list and setting the selected node as the current node; removing the current node from the first list and adding the current node to a second list in a state in which the current node is not the goal node; skipping the one or more nodes linked to the current node in a state in which the one or more nodes linked to the current node is in the second list; adding the one or more nodes linked to the current node to the first list setting the cost, and setting a parent node of one or more nodes linked to the current node as the current node, in a state in which the one or more nodes linked to the current node is not in the first list; and updating the cost and setting the parent node as the current node in a state in which the one or more nodes linked to the current node is in the first list and the cost of passing through the current node is less than a cost of passing through another node.
Zhang teaches adding the start node and one or more nodes linked to the start node to a first list (Zhang [0194] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Zhang teaches an initial node (i.e. start node) which is added to an open list (i.e. first list). Further, the successor node (i.e. one or more nodes linked to the start node) is included in the open list (i.e. first list) which is then added to the closed list (i.e. second list)); selecting a node having a least cost from the first list and setting the selected node as the current node list (Zhang [0194] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Zhang teaches after sorting the open list in order of increasing cost values, repeating the steps and choosing (i.e. selecting) the first node from the open list (i.e. least cost, since it is sorted by increasing cost)); removing the current node from the first list and adding the current node to a second list in a state in which the current node is not the goal node (Zhang [0194] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Zhang teaches removing the node ‘N’ from the open list and putting it in the closed list, due to ‘N’ not being ‘G’, Goal); skipping the one or more nodes linked to the current node in a state in which the one or more nodes linked to the current node is in the second list (Zhang [0106] & [0194] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Zhang teaches calculating a node expansion step size in which one or more values may be passed over to accommodate for a larger node expansion step size. The open and closed lists are then updated with the successors); adding the one or more nodes linked to the current node to the first list setting the cost (Zhang [0194] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Zhang teaches generating successors for the current node from the open list (i.e. first list) which are given cost values), and setting a parent node of one or more nodes linked to the current node as the current node, in a state in which the one or more nodes linked to the current node is not in the first list (Zhang [0194] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Zhang teaches setting successors which, when chosen, are removed from the open list (i.e. first list) and put into the closed list (i.e. second list). When the dynamic step-size is greater than one, there are multiple nodes being selected and one of them is selected as N during the next loop (i.e. parent node)); and updating the cost and setting the parent node as the current node in a state in which the one or more nodes linked to the current node is in the first list and the cost of passing through the current node is less than a cost of passing through another node (Zhang [0194], Examiner Note: Zhang teaches to process of sorting the open list of nodes by increasing cost. When choosing a parent node, the process of sorting the list by increasing cost and choosing the first node is inherently choosing a node that is less than a cost of another node that could be chosen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the path planning method of Cheng with the node choosing process of Zhang in order to provide an efficient method for planning a path for a self-driving vehicle which is collision-free, kinematically-feasible, and near-minimal in path length (Zhang [0003]).
Regarding Claim 9, Cheng in view of Zhang teaches The global path generation method of claim 8,
However, the modification does not specifically teach further comprising setting a node closest to the destination position as the goal node.
Zhang further teaches further comprising setting a node closest to the destination position as the goal node (Zhang [0131], Examiner Note: Zhang teaches the goal configuration being a destination as defined by the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the path planning method of Cheng in view of Zhang with the goal node choosing process of Zhang in order to provide an efficient method for planning a path for a self-driving vehicle which is collision-free, kinematically-feasible, and near-minimal in path length (Zhang [0003]).
Regarding Claim 10, Cheng in view of Zhang teaches The global path generation method of claim 8,
Cheng further discloses further comprising setting a node closest to a start position of the unmanned vehicle as the start node (Cheng [0156], Examiner Note: Cheng teaches when a vector is being generated, it is possible that the start point of the vector is the point closest to the vehicle).
Regarding Claim 11, Cheng in view of Zhang teaches The global path generation method of claim 8,
Zhang further teaches further comprising determining whether the first list is empty and terminating a process without generating the global path in a state in which the first list is empty and the goal node is not determined (Zhang [0194] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Zhang teaches checking if the open list (i.e. first list) is empty, and if so the process is “failed” and stopped. In this instance, the initial node would not be placed into the open list and therefore, the goal node would not be generated as well).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the path planning method of Cheng in view of Zhang with the empty open list check of Zhang in order to provide an efficient method for planning a path for a self-driving vehicle which is collision-free, kinematically-feasible, and near-minimal in path length (Zhang [0003]).
Regarding Claim 12, Cheng in view of Zhang teaches The global path generation method of claim 8,
Zhang teaches further comprising generating, as the global path, a path from the start node to the goal node in a state in which the current node is the goal node (Zhang [0194] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Zhang teaches checking if the current node is the goal node. If it is the goal node, a path is found.).
Regarding Claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 5. Therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 6 & 7, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claims 6 & 7. Therefore, claim 17 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 6 & 7.
Regarding Claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 8, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 10, and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 10. Therefore, claim 19 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 10.
Regarding Claim 20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 11 & 12, and it has been determined that claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claims 11 & 12. Therefore, claim 20 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 11 & 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0121833 A1 (Lee, Jin-han) discloses a method and apparatus for planning path of a robot with respect to environmental changes which includes generating one or more paths which avert obstacles
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669