DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below. Claims 1-5 are non-elected and withdrawn.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group II claims 6-20 in the reply filed on 5/20/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-5 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/20/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 5/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
Applicant respectfully traverses the outstanding Requirement on the grounds that a search and examination of the entire application would not place a serious search and/or examination burden on the Examiner. Further, Applicant submits that a search and/or examination of any one of the groups will cause the Examiner to consider the subject matter in the other group.
This is not found persuasive because there are features that are exclusive to each group. Therefore there is undue burden,
For example, but not limited to, Group I involves starting with determining object that blocks path of a vehicle, determine whether to traverse around the object, and determine a first time and a second time after the first time. These features are not in Group II. See claim 1 limitations:
determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, an object in the environment at least partially blocking a path of the vehicle;
determining a first cost associated with the vehicle passing the object on a first side of the object and a second cost associated with the vehicle passing the object on a second side of the object;
determining, based on one or more of the first cost or second cost, a first side association associated with a first time indicating whether to traverse around the object on the first side or the second side;
determining a second side association associated with a second time after the first time, wherein determining the second side association comprises determining, based at least in part on a time difference between the first time and the second time, that the second side association is a same side association as the first side association;
Group II has different features then group I, involves starting with determining a region, determining whether to traverse the region, and first point and second point. These features are not in group I. See claim 6 limitations (claim 14 is similar to claim 6):
determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a region in the environment;
determining a first cost associated with the vehicle passing the region on a first side of the region and a second cost associated with the vehicle passing the region on a second side of the region;
determining, based on one or more of the first cost or the second cost, a first side association indicating whether to traverse the region on the first side or the second side at a first point;
determining a second side association indicating whether to traverse the region on the first side or the second side at a second point
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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 6-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites limitation “determining, based on one or more of the first cost or the second cost, a first side association indicating whether to traverse the region on the first side or the second side at a first point”. As recited, it is not clear if “a first point” is being applied to the first side or not.
Claim 6 recites limitation “determining a second side association indicating whether to traverse the region on the first side or the second side at a second point”. As recited, it is not clear if “a second point” is being applied to the first side or not.
Claims 7-13 depend on this claim and suffer from the same issues.
Claim 14 recites limitation “determining, based on one or more of the first cost or the second cost, a first side association indicating whether to traverse the region on the first side or the second side at a first point”. As recited, it is not clear if “a first point” is being applied to the first side or not.
Claim 14 recites limitation “determining a second side association indicating whether to traverse the region on the first side or the second side at a second point”. As recited, it is not clear if “a second point” is being applied to the first side or not.
Claims 14-20 depend on this claim and suffer from the same issues.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency,
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.
Claim(s) 6, 12, 14, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seegmiller et al. (US 20210108936 a reference in IDS 12/17/2024).
Regarding claim 6 and 14, Seegmiller et al. teaches:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by a processor, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
(at least figs. 1-2, 7 [0024]-[0041] [0099]-[0101] discussed autonomous vehicle 101, vehicle controller 112, processor 705, memory devices 725):
receiving sensor data associated with a vehicle in an environment;
determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a region in the environment;
(at least figs. 1-4H, 6 [0024]-[0073] 6A-6C [0089]-[0098] discussed vehicle controller 112, discussed autonomous vehicle 101, vehicle controller 112, discussed vehicle planning to travel along route with reference path, then detecting objects on the road, and evaluating possible trajectories/paths to pass the objects on the left or the right; in particular at least [0028] discussed reference path, [0030] [0036] discussed route and trajectories, [0043]-[0049] discussed nominal route, trajectory, reference path; in particular at least [0026] [0031]-[0032] [0049]);
determining a first cost associated with the vehicle passing the region on a first side of the region and a second cost associated with the vehicle passing the region on a second side of the region;
determining, based on one or more of the first cost or the second cost, a first side association indicating whether to traverse the region on the first side or the second side at a first point;
determining a second side association indicating whether to traverse the region on the first side or the second side at a second point;
determining a trajectory for the vehicle based at least in part on one or more of the first side association or the second side association;
(at least figs. 1-4H, 6 [0024]-[0073] 6A-6C [0089]-[0098] discussed vehicle controller 112, discussed autonomous vehicle 101, vehicle controller 112, discussed vehicle planning to travel along route with reference path, then detecting objects on the road, and evaluating possible trajectories/paths to pass the objects on the left or the right; in particular at least [0028] discussed reference path, [0030] [0036] discussed route and trajectories, [0043]-[0049] discussed nominal route, trajectory, reference path; in particular at least [0026] [0031]-[0032] [0049]discussed receiving 342 real-time perception information; in particular at least [0050]-[0068] discussed topologically planning including “as shown in FIG. 4C a topologically distinct class may include all the trajectories 431a-n that pass each of the objects 401, 402, 403 on the left, which corresponds to node 408h in the tree graph 430 in FIG. 4B”, “FIG. 4D illustrates a topologically distinct class that includes all the trajectories 432a-n that pass each of the objects 401, 402, 403 on the right, which corresponds to node 408o in the tree graph 430 in FIG. 4B”; [0052]-[0064] discussed constraints include lateral offset of passing on left or passing on right; [0069]-[0072] discussed scoring, discussed “the system may optimize a trajectory for each constraint set to determine a candidate trajectory for each topologically distinct class”, discussed “the system may assign a score to each candidate trajectory, and select (352) a best candidate trajectory based on the assigned scores (e.g., best trajectory selected as maximum reward or minimum cost depending on scoring criteria) to be used for traversing the local region from the optimized trajectories”; fig. 6 [0089]-[0098] discussed an example of passing objects on left or right);
and
controlling the vehicle in the environment based at least in part on the trajectory;
(at least figs. 1-4H, 6 [0024]-[0073] 6A-6C [0089]-[0098] discussed vehicle controller 112, discussed autonomous vehicle 101, vehicle controller 112, discussed vehicle planning to travel along route with reference path, then detecting objects on the road, and evaluating possible trajectories/paths to pass the objects on the left or the right; in particular at least [0028] discussed reference path, [0030] [0036] discussed route and trajectories, [0043]-[0049] discussed nominal route, trajectory, reference path; in particular at least [0026] [0031]-[0032] [0049] discussed sensors/perception subsystem; discussed receiving 342 real-time perception information; in particular at least [0050]-[0068] discussed topologically planning including “as shown in FIG. 4C a topologically distinct class may include all the trajectories 431a-n that pass each of the objects 401, 402, 403 on the left, which corresponds to node 408h in the tree graph 430 in FIG. 4B”, “FIG. 4D illustrates a topologically distinct class that includes all the trajectories 432a-n that pass each of the objects 401, 402, 403 on the right, which corresponds to node 408o in the tree graph 430 in FIG. 4B”; [0052]-[0064] discussed constraints include lateral offset of passing on left or passing on right; [0069]-[0072] discussed scoring, discussed “the system may optimize a trajectory for each constraint set to determine a candidate trajectory for each topologically distinct class”, discussed “the system may assign a score to each candidate trajectory, and select (352) a best candidate trajectory based on the assigned scores (e.g., best trajectory selected as maximum reward or minimum cost depending on scoring criteria) to be used for traversing the local region from the optimized trajectories”; fig. 6 [0089]-[0098] discussed an example of passing objects on left or right; [0036][0039] discussed autonomous vehicle executing trajectories);
Regarding claim 12, Seegmiller et al. teaches:
determining an initial planning corridor associated with the vehicle; and
determining, as an updated planning corridor and based at least in part on the second side association, an area exclusive of the region and exclusive of one of the first side of the region or the second side of the region;
(at least figs. 1-4H, 6 [0024]-[0073] 6A-6C [0089]-[0098] discussed vehicle controller 112, discussed autonomous vehicle 101, vehicle controller 112, discussed vehicle planning to travel along route with reference path, then detecting objects on the road, and evaluating possible trajectories/paths to pass the objects on the left or the right; in particular at least [0028] discussed reference path, [0030] [0036] discussed route and trajectories, [0043]-[0049] discussed nominal route, trajectory, reference path; in particular at least [0026] [0031]-[0032] [0049] discussed sensors/perception subsystem identifying objects/obstacles; discussed receiving 342 real-time perception information including objects; in particular at least [0050]-[0068] discussed topologically planning including “as shown in FIG. 4C a topologically distinct class may include all the trajectories 431a-n that pass each of the objects 401, 402, 403 on the left, which corresponds to node 408h in the tree graph 430 in FIG. 4B”, “FIG. 4D illustrates a topologically distinct class that includes all the trajectories 432a-n that pass each of the objects 401, 402, 403 on the right, which corresponds to node 408o in the tree graph 430 in FIG. 4B”; [0052]-[0064] discussed constraints include lateral offset of passing on left or passing on right; [0069]-[0072] discussed scoring, discussed “the system may optimize a trajectory for each constraint set to determine a candidate trajectory for each topologically distinct class”, discussed “the system may assign a score to each candidate trajectory, and select (352) a best candidate trajectory based on the assigned scores (e.g., best trajectory selected as maximum reward or minimum cost depending on scoring criteria) to be used for traversing the local region from the optimized trajectories”; fig. 6 [0089]-[0098] discussed an example of passing objects on left or right; it is noted that each of fig. 4c and fig. 4D and its description about topologically distinct class read on a updated planning corridor that is exclusive of the region and exclusive of an area of the initial planning corridor between the region and one side of the initial planning corridor);
Regarding claim 17, Seegmiller et al. teaches:
wherein determining at least one of the first cost or the second cost is based at least in part on at least one of:
a kinematic cost;
a path length cost;
a travel time cost;
an acceleration cost;
a proximity cost; or
a path confidence cost;
(at least figs. 1-4H, 6 [0024]-[0073] 6A-6C [0089]-[0098] discussed vehicle controller 112, discussed autonomous vehicle 101, vehicle controller 112, discussed vehicle planning to travel along route with reference path, then detecting objects on the road, and evaluating possible trajectories/paths to pass the objects on the left or the right; in particular at least [0028] discussed reference path, [0030] [0036] discussed route and trajectories, [0043]-[0049] discussed nominal route, trajectory, reference path; in particular at least [0026] [0031]-[0032] [0049] discussed sensors/perception subsystem identifying objects/obstacles; discussed receiving 342 real-time perception information including objects; in particular at least [0050]-[0068] discussed topologically planning including “as shown in FIG. 4C a topologically distinct class may include all the trajectories 431a-n that pass each of the objects 401, 402, 403 on the left, which corresponds to node 408h in the tree graph 430 in FIG. 4B”, “FIG. 4D illustrates a topologically distinct class that includes all the trajectories 432a-n that pass each of the objects 401, 402, 403 on the right, which corresponds to node 408o in the tree graph 430 in FIG. 4B”; [0052]-[0064] discussed constraints include lateral offset of passing on left or passing on right; [0069]-[0072] discussed scoring, discussed “the system may optimize a trajectory for each constraint set to determine a candidate trajectory for each topologically distinct class”, discussed “the system may assign a score to each candidate trajectory, and select (352) a best candidate trajectory based on the assigned scores (e.g., best trajectory selected as maximum reward or minimum cost depending on scoring criteria) to be used for traversing the local region from the optimized trajectories”; fig. 6 [0089]-[0098] discussed an example of passing objects on left or right; in particular at least [0070] discussed “At 350, the system may assign a score to each candidate trajectory, and select (352) a best candidate trajectory based on the assigned scores (e.g., best trajectory selected as maximum reward or minimum cost depending on scoring criteria) to be used for traversing the local region from the optimized trajectories. In certain embodiments, the system may assign a score based on factors such as, without limitation, risk of collision (i.e., a trajectory that has a lesser risk of collision may be assigned a lower cost than a trajectory that has a higher risk of collision), traffic rule violations (i.e. a trajectory that clears an intersection may be assigned lower cost than a trajectory that stops in the intersection and “blocks the box”), passenger comfort (e.g., a trajectory that does not require performing sudden braking or steering maneuvers may be assigned a lower cost than a trajectory that requires such maneuvers), or the like)
Regarding claim 20, Seegmiller et al. teaches:
wherein determining at least one of the first cost or the second cost is based at least in part on a distance between the vehicle and the region;
(at least figs. 1-4H, 6 [0024]-[0073] 6A-6C [0089]-[0098] discussed vehicle controller 112, discussed autonomous vehicle 101, vehicle controller 112, discussed vehicle planning to travel along route with reference path, then detecting objects on the road, and evaluating possible trajectories/paths to pass the objects on the left or the right; in particular at least [0028] discussed reference path, [0030] [0036] discussed route and trajectories, [0043]-[0049] discussed nominal route, trajectory, reference path; in particular at least [0026] [0031]-[0032] [0049] discussed sensors/perception subsystem identifying objects/obstacles; discussed receiving 342 real-time perception information including objects; in particular at least [0050]-[0068] discussed topologically planning including “as shown in FIG. 4C a topologically distinct class may include all the trajectories 431a-n that pass each of the objects 401, 402, 403 on the left, which corresponds to node 408h in the tree graph 430 in FIG. 4B”, “FIG. 4D illustrates a topologically distinct class that includes all the trajectories 432a-n that pass each of the objects 401, 402, 403 on the right, which corresponds to node 408o in the tree graph 430 in FIG. 4B”; [0052]-[0064] discussed constraints include lateral offset of passing on left or passing on right; [0069]-[0072] discussed scoring, discussed “the system may optimize a trajectory for each constraint set to determine a candidate trajectory for each topologically distinct class”, discussed “the system may assign a score to each candidate trajectory, and select (352) a best candidate trajectory based on the assigned scores (e.g., best trajectory selected as maximum reward or minimum cost depending on scoring criteria) to be used for traversing the local region from the optimized trajectories”; fig. 6 [0089]-[0098] discussed an example of passing objects on left or right; in particular at least [0070] discussed “At 350, the system may assign a score to each candidate trajectory, and select (352) a best candidate trajectory based on the assigned scores (e.g., best trajectory selected as maximum reward or minimum cost depending on scoring criteria) to be used for traversing the local region from the optimized trajectories. In certain embodiments, the system may assign a score based on factors such as, without limitation, risk of collision (i.e., a trajectory that has a lesser risk of collision may be assigned a lower cost than a trajectory that has a higher risk of collision), traffic rule violations (i.e. a trajectory that clears an intersection may be assigned lower cost than a trajectory that stops in the intersection and “blocks the box”), passenger comfort (e.g., a trajectory that does not require performing sudden braking or steering maneuvers may be assigned a lower cost than a trajectory that requires such maneuvers), or the like”; [0051]-[0068] discussed constraints, including the longitudinal actions and associated constraints, and lateral; [0098])
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.
Claim(s) 7-8, 10-11, 16, 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seegmiller et al. (US 20210108936 a reference in IDS 12/17/2024) as applied to claims 6, 14 above, and further in view of KING et al. (US 20210354725 a reference in IDS 12/17/2024).
Regarding claim 7, Seegmiller et al. does not explicitly teach:
determining that a desired ending state of the vehicle is a terminal state, wherein determining at least one of the first cost or the second cost comprises referencing a value associated with a cost plot based at least in part on a current vehicle state and the terminal state;
However, KING et al. teaches:
determining that a desired ending state of the vehicle is a terminal state, wherein determining at least one of the first cost or the second cost comprises referencing a value associated with a cost plot based at least in part on a current vehicle state and the terminal state;
( at least [0123]-[0127] fig. 8-9 [0180]-0187] discussed stereoscopic camera system of the vehicle is used to determine non-path probability map and path probability map, path and non-path regions, fig. 10-12 [0188]-[0206] discussed determine a cost map/grid relating to the terrain based on the path and non-path probabilities, candidate trajectories/routes 810-830 on cost map/cost cells, discussed “a preferred path may be selected from the candidate trajectories in dependence on the calculated costs… VCU 10 may select trajectory 810 as its preferred path as it will have the lowest cost”) to select a preferred path ([0180]-0187] [0188]-[0206]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of Seegmiller et al. with determining that a desired ending state of the vehicle is a terminal state, wherein determining at least one of the first cost or the second cost comprises referencing a value associated with a cost plot based at least in part on a current vehicle state and the terminal state; as taught by KING et al. to select a preferred path.
Regarding claim 8, Seegmiller et al. does not explicitly teach:
wherein determining at least one of the first cost or the second cost is based at least in part on a cost plot, wherein the cost plot comprises a set of values associated with moving the vehicle from a range of positions and orientations to a target range and target orientation;
However, KING et al. teaches:
wherein determining at least one of the first cost or the second cost is based at least in part on a cost plot, wherein the cost plot comprises a set of values associated with moving the vehicle from a range of positions and orientations to a target range and target orientation;
( at least [0123]-[0127] fig. 8-9 [0180]-0187] discussed stereoscopic camera system of the vehicle is used to determine non-path probability map and path probability map, path and non-path regions, fig. 10-12 [0188]-[0206] discussed determine a cost map/grid relating to the terrain based on the path and non-path probabilities, candidate trajectories/routes 810-830 on cost map/cost cells, discussed “a preferred path may be selected from the candidate trajectories in dependence on the calculated costs… VCU 10 may select trajectory 810 as its preferred path as it will have the lowest cost”) to select a preferred path ([0180]-0187] [0188]-[0206]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of Seegmiller et al. with wherein determining at least one of the first cost or the second cost is based at least in part on a cost plot, wherein the cost plot comprises a set of values associated with moving the vehicle from a range of positions and orientations to a target range and target orientation; as taught by KING et al. to select a preferred path.
Regarding claim 10, Seegmiller et al. does not explicitly teach:
wherein determining one of the first cost or the second cost comprises:
determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a data structure indicating occupied and unoccupied space in the environment;
determining a route associated with the vehicle, the route including a starting state of the vehicle and a desired ending state of the vehicle;
determining, based at least in part on the route, a first grid comprising one or more layers disposed at intervals along the route and defining a plurality of nodes associated with different locations in the environment;
determining, based at least in part on the data structure, a first subset of nodes associated with a first candidate path; and
determining, based at least in part on the first subset of nodes, the first cost or the second cost;
However, KING et al. teaches:
wherein determining one of the first cost or the second cost comprises:
determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a data structure indicating occupied and unoccupied space in the environment;
determining a route associated with the vehicle, the route including a starting state of the vehicle and a desired ending state of the vehicle;
determining, based at least in part on the route, a first grid comprising one or more layers disposed at intervals along the route and defining a plurality of nodes associated with different locations in the environment;
determining, based at least in part on the data structure, a first subset of nodes associated with a first candidate path; and
determining, based at least in part on the first subset of nodes, the first cost or the second cost;
( at least [0123]-[0127] fig. 8-9 [0180]-0187] discussed stereoscopic camera system of the vehicle is used to determine non-path probability map and path probability map, path and non-path regions, fig. 10-12 [0188]-[0206] discussed determine a cost map/grid relating to the terrain based on the path and non-path probabilities, candidate trajectories/routes 810-830 on cost map/cost cells, discussed “a preferred path may be selected from the candidate trajectories in dependence on the calculated costs… VCU 10 may select trajectory 810 as its preferred path as it will have the lowest cost”) to select a preferred path ([0180]-0187] [0188]-[0206]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of Seegmiller et al. with wherein determining one of the first cost or the second cost comprises: determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a data structure indicating occupied and unoccupied space in the environment; determining a route associated with the vehicle, the route including a starting state of the vehicle and a desired ending state of the vehicle; determining, based at least in part on the route, a first grid comprising one or more layers disposed at intervals along the route and defining a plurality of nodes associated with different locations in the environment; determining, based at least in part on the data structure, a first subset of nodes associated with a first candidate path; and determining, based at least in part on the first subset of nodes, the first cost or the second cost as taught by KING et al. to select a preferred path.
Regarding claim 11, Seegmiller et al. teaches:
wherein determining the first subset of nodes comprises:
determining a first set of actions for controlling motion of the vehicle;
determining a first action of the first set of actions, based at least in part on a first action cost associated with the first action;
determining a predicted first vehicle state associated with the first action;
determining a second set of actions for controlling motion of the vehicle from the predicted first vehicle state;
determining a second action of the second set of actions, based at least in part on a second action cost associated with the second action; and
determining a predicted second vehicle state associated with the second action;
(at least figs. 1-4H, 6 [0024]-[0073] 6A-6C [0089]-[0098] discussed vehicle controller 112, discussed autonomous vehicle 101, vehicle controller 112, discussed vehicle planning to travel along route with reference path, then detecting objects on the road, and evaluating possible trajectories/paths to pass the objects on the left or the right; in particular at least [0028] discussed reference path, [0030] [0036] discussed route and trajectories, [0043]-[0049] discussed nominal route, trajectory, reference path; in particular at least [0026] [0031]-[0032] [0049] discussed sensors/perception subsystem identifying objects/obstacles; discussed receiving 342 real-time perception information including objects; in particular at least [0050]-[0068] discussed topologically planning including “as shown in FIG. 4C a topologically distinct class may include all the trajectories 431a-n that pass each of the objects 401, 402, 403 on the left, which corresponds to node 408h in the tree graph 430 in FIG. 4B”, “FIG. 4D illustrates a topologically distinct class that includes all the trajectories 432a-n that pass each of the objects 401, 402, 403 on the right, which corresponds to node 408o in the tree graph 430 in FIG. 4B”; [0052]-[0064] discussed constraints include lateral offset of passing on left or passing on right; [0069]-[0072] discussed scoring, discussed “the system may optimize a trajectory for each constraint set to determine a candidate trajectory for each topologically distinct class”, discussed “the system may assign a score to each candidate trajectory, and select (352) a best candidate trajectory based on the assigned scores (e.g., best trajectory selected as maximum reward or minimum cost depending on scoring criteria) to be used for traversing the local region from the optimized trajectories”; fig. 6 [0089]-[0098] discussed an example of passing objects on left or right; in particular [0065] discussed “For example, in FIG. 4F, the envelope 444 illustrates the constraints to (1) track behind object 402, and to (2) pass object 401 on the right. The constraints are expressed in curvilinear space with respect to the reference path 405. To track behind object 402 the longitudinal distance along the reference path must not violate an upper bound 454. To pass object 401 on the right, the lateral offset must not violate a left bound over some interval on the reference path”, at least track behind object 402 and pass object 401 on the right read on first set of candidate actions, the longitudinal distance along the reference path must not violate an upper bound 454 and the lateral offset must not violate a left bound over some interval on the reference path read on second set of candidate actions);
Regarding claim 16, the cited portions and rationale in rejection to claim 8 read on this claim.
Regarding claim 18, the cited portions and rationale in rejection to claim 10 read on this claim.
Regarding claim 19, the cited portions and rationale in rejection to claim 11 read on this claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12208819 in view of Seegmiller et al. (US 20210108936 a reference in IDS 12/17/2024) and KING et al. (US 20210354725 a reference in IDS 12/17/2024).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12208819, in particular claims 8 and 15, teach all limitations except for:
determining, based on one or more of the first cost or the second cost, a first side association indicating whether to traverse the region on the first side or the second side at a first point;
determining a second side association indicating whether to traverse the region on the first side or the second side at a second point;
determining a trajectory for the vehicle based at least in part on one or more of the first side association or the second side association;
However, Seegmiller et al. teaches:
determining, based on one or more of the first cost or the second cost, a first side association indicating whether to traverse the region on the first side or the second side at a first point;
determining a second side association indicating whether to traverse the region on the first side or the second side at a second point;
determining a trajectory for the vehicle based at least in part on one or more of the first side association or the second side association;
(at least figs. 1-4H, 6 [0024]-[0073] 6A-6C [0089]-[0098] discussed vehicle controller 112, discussed autonomous vehicle 101, vehicle controller 112, discussed vehicle planning to travel along route with reference path, then detecting objects on the road, and evaluating possible trajectories/paths to pass the objects on the left or the right; in particular at least [0028] discussed reference path, [0030] [0036] discussed route and trajectories, [0043]-[0049] discussed nominal route, trajectory, reference path; in particular at least [0026] [0031]-[0032] [0049] discussed sensors/perception subsystem; discussed receiving 342 real-time perception information; in particular at least [0050]-[0068] discussed topologically planning including “as shown in FIG. 4C a topologically distinct class may include all the trajectories 431a-n that pass each of the objects 401, 402, 403 on the left, which corresponds to node 408h in the tree graph 430 in FIG. 4B”, “FIG. 4D illustrates a topologically distinct class that includes all the trajectories 432a-n that pass each of the objects 401, 402, 403 on the right, which corresponds to node 408o in the tree graph 430 in FIG. 4B”; [0052]-[0064] discussed constraints include lateral offset of passing on left or passing on right; [0069]-[0072] discussed scoring, discussed “the system may optimize a trajectory for each constraint set to determine a candidate trajectory for each topologically distinct class”, discussed “the system may assign a score to each candidate trajectory, and select (352) a best candidate trajectory based on the assigned scores (e.g., best trajectory selected as maximum reward or minimum cost depending on scoring criteria) to be used for traversing the local region from the optimized trajectories”; fig. 6 [0089]-[0098] discussed an example of passing objects on left or right; [0036][0039] discussed autonomous vehicle executing trajectories) for planning ([0024]-[0073] [0089]-[0098]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12208819 with determining, based on one or more of the first cost or the second cost, a first side association indicating whether to traverse the region on the first side or the second side at a first point; determining a second side association indicating whether to traverse the region on the first side or the second side at a second point; determining a trajectory for the vehicle based at least in part on one or more of the first side association or the second side association; as taught by Seegmiller et al. for planning.
Regarding claims 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19 , claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12208819 teach these claims.
It is noted that claims 17 also taught by Seegmiller et al. as applied to prior art rejection above.
Claims 8, 10-11, 16, 18-19 also taught by Seegmiller et al. in view of King et al. as applied to prior art rejections above
Regarding claims 12,20, Seegmiller et al. teaches these claims as applied to prior art rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oppolzer (US 20180364710) discussed passing obstacle on right or left.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
BAO LONG T. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3656
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights