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 .
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Status of the Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment of 04/28/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 06/08/2026is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment and/or Argument
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Specification Objection(s) of [0015] as set forth in the office action 06 March 2026 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Specification Objection(s) as set forth in the office action 06 March 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the office action 06 March 2026 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the office action 06 March 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson et al. (US 2013/0245877 A1 hereinafter Ferguson) in view of Bonasera et al. (US 2025/0139991 A1 hereinafter Bonasera).
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claims 6 & 16), Ferguson teaches A system (see at least Fig. 7 Abstract) comprising:
one or more processors (see at least Fig. 7); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that (see at least Fig. 7), when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a sensor device associated with a vehicle, sensor data of an environment; (see at least Fig. 1& 7 [0022-0030]: A vehicle causes a sensor in the vehicle to sense information in a first field of view. The first field of view may include any portion of the environment surrounding the vehicle.)
determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a blocking feature of the environment; (see at least Fig. 1-5B [0022-0075]: The vehicle 402 includes a sensor that is configured to sense information in a first field of view 410. The first field of view 410 includes an obstacle, namely a truck 404 (corresponds to blocking feature). The vehicle may wish to detect the sign 406 (corresponds to relevant object) that is blocked by the truck.)
generating a candidate trajectory for the vehicle to follow; (see at least Fig. 1-5B, 7 [0022-0075, 0110]: The navigation and pathing system 748 may be configured to incorporate data from the sensor fusion algorithm 744, the GPS 726, and one or more predetermined maps so as to determine the driving path for the vehicle. Examiner notes that while the term “candidate trajectory” is not used, the disclosure of autonomous vehicle computing a path based on sensors and map information is functionally equivalent to generating a candidate path.)
determining, based at least in part on the blocking feature and the candidate trajectory, an occluded region within the environment; (see at least Fig. 1-5B, 7 [0022-0075]: The vehicle 402 includes a sensor that is configured to sense information in a first field of view 410. The first field of view 410 includes an obstacle, namely a truck 404 (corresponds to blocking feature). The vehicle may wish to detect the sign 406 (corresponds to relevant object) that is blocked by the truck. The vehicle may determine a desired field of view that improves the ability of the sensor. The navigation and pathing system 748 may be configured to incorporate data from the sensor fusion algorithm 744, the GPS 726, and one or more predetermined maps so as to determine the driving path for the vehicle. The occluded region determination is disclosed because the system explicitly identifies that some portion of the environment (i.e. the sign) is blocked from view by a truck and the fact that the system then plans a desired field of view means that it knows where the occlusion occurs.)
determining, based at least in part on the portion of object within the occluded region, a cost associated with the candidate trajectory; (see at least Fig. 1-5B, 7 [0022-0075]: The vehicle 402 includes a sensor that is configured to sense information in a first field of view 410. The first field of view 410 includes an obstacle, namely a truck 404 (corresponds to blocking feature). The vehicle may wish to detect the sign 406 (corresponds to relevant object) that is blocked by the truck. The vehicle may determine a desired field of view that improves the ability of the sensor. Examiner notes that the limitation is taught/suggested by Ferguson even though the term “cost” is not used because the system determine which position/trajectory best improves visibility of a traffic sign and/or oncoming traffic to an intersection, where the candidate/original path that leaves the sign completely occluded is less desirable (high cost) whereas a trajectory that improves visibility is more desirable (low cost))
determining, based at least in part on the cost and the candidate trajectory, a modified trajectory to capture data of the object; and controlling the vehicle based at least in part on the modified trajectory. (see at least Fig. 1-5B, 7 [0022-0075]: The vehicle may determine a desired field of view that improves the ability of the sensor to sense information on the sign. In order to achieve the desired field of view, the vehicle may decelerate and thereby modifying a vehicle speed. Examiner notes that Ferguson discloses modifying vehicle velocity by decelerating (i.e. modifying a time point of the candidate trajectory) or sensor state to improve sensor coverage for capturing data of the object(s) of interest.)
It may be alleged that Ferguson does not explicitly teach determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a plurality of objects within the occluded regions;
determining a ranking of the plurality of objects within the occluded region;
determining, based at least in part on the ranking of the plurality of objects within the occluded region, a cost associated with the candidate trajectory;
Bonasera is directed to motion planning of autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles based on occluded regions, Bonasera teaches determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a plurality of objects within the occluded regions; (see at least Fig. 2-4 [0045-0061]: The occlusion computing module receives various inputs from the map of the surrounding of the vehicle, mapping system (e.g. number of lanes, intersection, road signs), information about objects (e.g. moving and stationary objects around the vehicle such as other vehicles, buildings, and pedestrians) surrounding the vehicle captured by the vehicle on-board sensors and identifies occluded regions in the map of the surroundings of the vehicle, e.g. occluded regions 220-1 through 220-7 collectively called occluded regions 220 with plurality of objects 200 inside within the occluded regions as shown in Fig. 3-4.
determining a ranking of the plurality of objects within the occluded region; (see at least Fig. 2-4 [0045-0061]: The filtering module filters out irrelevant (unimportant) occluded regions from the map based on heuristics (e.g. occlusions that do not intersect the route of the vehicle, size of occluded regions, proximity of the occluded regions from the vehicle) and outputs a map with filtered occluded regions. The scoring module scores the filtered occluded regions to indicate the importance of each of the filtered regions that is material to the trajectory of the vehicle.)
determining, based at least in part on the ranking of the plurality of objects within the occluded region, a cost associated with the candidate trajectory; (see at least Fig. 2-4 [0045-0061, 0072]: The motion planning module changes the trajectory of the vehicle based on the importance scores for the filtered occluded regions. The motion planning module can process the filtered occluded regions and generate one or more alternate trajectories for the vehicle based on the filtered occluded regions.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferguson’s system and method for actively modifying a field of view of an autonomous vehicle to sense information about an environment to incorporate the technique of determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a plurality of objects within the occluded regions; determining a ranking of the plurality of objects within the occluded region; determining, based at least in part on the ranking of the plurality of objects within the occluded region, a cost associated with the candidate trajectory as taught by Bonasera with reasonable expectation of success such that autonomous vehicle prioritizes and scores multiple occluded regions based on their potential hazard and enabling the motion planner to make safer, more efficient and better driving decisions.
Regarding Claim 3 (similarly claims 8 & 18), the combination of Ferguson in view of Bonasera teaches The system of claim 1, wherein determining the modified trajectory comprises:
It may be alleged that Ferguson does not explicitly teach determining, for a future time and based at least in part on the blocking feature, the candidate trajectory, and an object of the plurality of objects, a portion of a driving lane that causes the object to be within a field of view of the sensor device;
generating the modified trajectory that instructs the vehicle to navigate to the portion of the driving lane; and controlling the vehicle based at least in part on the modified trajectory.
Bonasera is directed to motion planning of autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles based on occluded regions, Bonasera teaches determining, for a future time and based at least in part on the blocking feature, the candidate trajectory, and an object of the plurality of objects, a portion of a driving lane that causes the object to be within a field of view of the sensor device; generating the modified trajectory that instructs the vehicle to navigate to the portion of the driving lane; and controlling the vehicle based at least in part on the modified trajectory. (see at least Fig. 2-4 [0045-0061]: Additional inputs received by the filtering module include the route, state, and current trajectory of the vehicle, states of moving objects (e.g. other vehicles and pedestrians) around the vehicle, and predictions about movement of objects around the vehicle (e.g. where the objects will imminently be located relative to the vehicle (e.g. in the next few seconds). The filtering module filters out irrelevant occluded regions from the map based on heuristics (e.g. occlusions that do not intersect the route of the vehicle, size of occluded regions, proximity of the occluded regions from the vehicle) and outputs a map with filtered occluded regions. The heuristics can include multiple occluded regions on the lane of the vehicle that are in front and rear of the vehicle of the vehicle. The heuristics can include temporal evolution of occlusions and objects around the vehicle. The modification of the trajectory of the vehicle can generate alternate trajectories from which the autonomous subsystem of the vehicle can select a trajectory. For example, the modified trajectory can be for executing the left turn differently (e.g., faster, slower, narrowly, widely) than planned in the original trajectory, or bringing the vehicle to a complete stop.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferguson’s system and method for actively modifying a field of view of an autonomous vehicle to sense information about an environment to incorporate the technique of determining, for a future time and based at least in part on the blocking feature, the candidate trajectory, and an object of the plurality of objects, a portion of a driving lane that causes the object to be within a field of view of the sensor device; generating the modified trajectory that instructs the vehicle to navigate to the portion of the driving lane; and controlling the vehicle based at least in part on the modified trajectory as taught by Bonasera with reasonable expectation of success such that autonomous vehicle prioritizes and scores multiple occluded regions based on their potential hazard and enabling the motion planner to make safer, more efficient and better driving decisions.
Regarding Claim 4 (similarly claims 9-10 & 19-20), the combination of Ferguson in view of Bonasera teaches The system of claim 1,
Ferguson further teaches wherein determining the cost is based at least in part on at least one of: a number of sensor devices of the vehicle that have a field of view including an object of the plurality of objects, a capability of the sensor device to capture second data of the object, an amount of the relevant object that is within the field of view of the sensor device, or a ranking of the object. (see at least Fig. 1-5B, 7 [0022-0075]: The vehicle may determine a desired field of view that improves the ability of the sensor to sense information on the sign. In order to achieve the desired field of view, the vehicle may decelerate and thereby modifying a vehicle speed. Examiner notes that candidate options (position, speed, sensor orientations) are assessed based on how well they improve visibility of relevant objects to be within the desired field of view, and the system selects the best option is functionally equivalent to assigning a higher cost to worse options and although not explicitly stated, the metric underlying the choice could reasonably be interpreted as “the more of the relevant object visible, the lower the cost.”
Regarding Claim 5 (similarly claim 13), the combination of Ferguson in view of Bonasera teaches The system of claim 1,
Ferguson further teaches wherein the blocking feature is at least one of: a second vehicle, a trailer, particulate matter, or light. (see at least Fig. 4A-4B [0022-0075]: The vehicle 402 includes a sensor that is configured to sense information in a first field of view 410. The first field of view 410 includes an obstacle, namely a truck 404 (corresponds to blocking feature). The vehicle may wish to detect the sign 406 (corresponds to relevant object) that is blocked by the truck.)
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Ferguson in view of Bonasera teaches The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 10,
It may be alleged that Ferguson does not explicitly teach wherein the ranking of the object is based at least in part on: a classification of the object, a path of the vehicle, or an environmental condition.
Bonasera is directed to motion planning of autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles based on occluded regions, Bonasera teaches wherein the ranking of the object is based at least in part on: a classification of the object, a path of the vehicle, or an environmental condition. (see at least Fig. 2-4 [0045-0061]: The filtering module filters out irrelevant (unimportant) occluded regions from the map based on heuristics (e.g. occlusions that do not intersect the route of the vehicle, size of occluded regions, proximity of the occluded regions from the vehicle) and outputs a map with filtered occluded regions. The scoring module scores the filtered occluded regions to indicate the importance of each of the filtered regions that is material to the trajectory of the vehicle.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ferguson’s system and method for actively modifying a field of view of an autonomous vehicle to sense information about an environment to incorporate the technique of ranking of the object is based at least in part on: a classification of the object, a path of the vehicle, or an environmental condition as taught by Bonasera with reasonable expectation of success such that autonomous vehicle prioritizes and scores multiple occluded regions based on their potential hazard and enabling the motion planner to make safer, more efficient and better driving decisions.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Ferguson in view of Bonasera teaches The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 6,
Ferguson further teaches wherein an object of the plurality objects is at least one of: a traffic light, traffic signage, construction signage, a construction worker, or an emergency vehicle. (see at least Fig. 1-5B, 7 [0022-0075]: The vehicle 402 includes a sensor that is configured to sense information in a first field of view 410. The first field of view 410 includes an obstacle, namely a truck 404 (corresponds to blocking feature). The vehicle may wish to detect the sign 406 (corresponds to relevant object) that is blocked by the truck.)
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Ferguson in view of Bonasera teaches The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 6,
Ferguson further teaches wherein the sensor data is at least one of: current sensor data captured from a sensor device, or map data. (see at least Fig. 1-5B, 7 [0022-0075]: The vehicle 402 includes a sensor that is configured to sense information in a first field of view 410. The first field of view 410 includes an obstacle, namely a truck 404 (corresponds to blocking feature). The vehicle may wish to detect the sign 406 (corresponds to relevant object) that is blocked by the truck.)
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Ferguson in view of Bonasera teaches The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 6,
Ferguson further teaches wherein the modified trajectory includes modifying a height of the vehicle. (see at least [0018]: The vehicle may modify the field of view by, for example, modifying a position of the vehicle, modifying a speed of the vehicle, modifying an acceleration of the vehicle, modifying a position of the sensor, and/or modifying an orientation of the sensor.)
Claim(s) 2, 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Bonasera and Yalla (US 2018/0164107 A1).
Regarding Claim 2 (similarly claims 7 & 17), the combination of Ferguson in view of Bonasera teaches The system of claim 1, wherein determining the modified trajectory comprises:
It may alleged that the combination of Ferguson in view of Bonasera does not explicitly teach determining a degradation in quality of data captured by the sensor device;
determining a location of a light source;
determining a relative angle between the location of the light source and a heading of the vehicle;
determining, based at least in part on map data, the location, and a relative heading, a predicted driving lane that is shaded or occluded from the light source; and
determining, based at least in part on the predicted driving lane, the modified trajectory.
Yalla is directed to vehicle routing to avoid regions with glare, Yalla teaches determining a degradation in quality of data captured by the sensor device; determining a relative angle between the location of the light source and a heading of the vehicle; (see at least Fig. 3A-6 [0017, 0026-0037]: The system identifies glare-prone portions of a first route in which the sun is predicted to degrade visibility of an environment outside the vehicle. The degraded visibility prediction can be based on the position of the sun in the sky and the orientation of the vehicle with respect to the sun. A portion of the route is considered to be glare-prone if the sun is positioned so that it is directed observable by the driver through the front windshield of the vehicle.)
determining, based at least in part on map data, the location, and a relative heading, a predicted driving lane that is shaded or occluded from the light source; and determining, based at least in part on the predicted driving lane, the modified trajectory. (see at least Fig. 3A-6 [0017, 0026-0037]: Sun position data can be fused with 3D terrain data to identify shadowed areas within the identified flare-prone portions of the first route. The sun position information may comprise sun-angle information. The 3D map data can also be retrieved and combined with the sun-position information to identify shadowed areas. Avoidance of or re-routing around a hazard area can be as simple as selecting a lane of a road less likely to be subject to strong glare where one or more lanes of a multi-lane roads were masked from the sun by the shadow of a building or a large terrain feature. )
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ferguson and Bonasera to incorporate the technique of sun-glare aware path adjustment as taught by Yalla with reasonable expectation of success to provide a system that can handle both physical occlusion and environmental occlusion that ensure a more robust trajectory selection allowing more optimal, safer and perceptually aware motion planning in autonomous vehicle system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights