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 .
This is a final office action on the merits. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14, 16-18, and 20-26 are currently pending and are addressed below.
The examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection 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.
Additionally, for the present application, the examiner would like to note that the cited page numbers for Michele are relative to those that are present directly on the document, opposed to Hyoung which takes into the total page numbers of the document when viewed.
Response to Arguments
In light of the recent interview, the amendments, and applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 101, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026, regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, it is stated that Michele fails to disclose the following recitation from amended claim 1, "evaluate routes, including the alternate routes, according to a metric that is based on: at least one of a time or a distance to a point of approach between the first object and the second object," and while the argument has been carefully considered, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Michele considers criteria of vehicle dynamics such as lateral acceleration and passenger comfort, it also provides the evaluation of candidate avoidance trajectories based on their relationship to the collision area, which is determined from position and velocities of the vehicle and the object. Michele determines whether candidate trajectories intersect the collision area and selects a lateral displacement to avoid the collision while maintaining a metric tolerance. The examiner understands this as that the candidate routes are evaluated based on a distance relationship to the location at which the vehicle and obstacle approach one another, as required by the claim language under broadest reasonable interpretation. As such, that matter challenged in the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the argument that Michele fails to disclose the following, "wherein the alternate routes include a route segment with a predefined geometric offset,” applicant’s arguments 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.
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 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14, 16-18, and 20-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 17/573,085. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the recited limitations would still fall within the claimed limitations of the application. For example, the limitations of claim 1 for the current application can be similarly mapped to that of claims 1, 9, and 17 of the related application.
Current Application
Claim 1
A device, comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
obtain a trajectory of a first object, associated with vehicles, robots, autonomous vehicles, or autonomous robots and a predicted trajectory of a second object that is moving;
detect a conflict between the first object and the second object based on a comparison of the trajectory of the first object and the predicted trajectory of the second object;
determine alternate routes for the first object,
wherein the alternate routes include a route segment with a predefined geometric offset from a current route of the first object, and a transition segment disposed between the current route and a respective route segment of the alternate routes
wherein the transition segment connects the current route to the respective route segment;
evaluate routes, including the alternate routes, according to a metric that is based on:
at least one of a time or a distance to a point of approach between the first object and the second object; and
select a route, from the routes, to cause the first object to utilize the selected route to avoid the conflict
Claim 1
A device, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
obtain a trajectory of a first object, associated with vehicles, robots, autonomous vehicles, or autonomous robots and a predicted trajectory of a second object that is moving
detect a conflict between the first object and the second object based on a comparison of the trajectory of the first object and the predicted trajectory of the second object;
determine alternate routes for the first object,
wherein the alternate routes include a route segment with a predefined offset from a current route of the first object, and a transition segment disposed between the current route and a respective route segment of the alternate routes
wherein the transition segment connects the current route to the respective route segment;
evaluate routes, including the alternate routes, according to a metric that is based on:
at least one of a time or a distance to a point of approach between the first object and the second object; and
select a route, from the routes, to cause the first object to utilize the selected route to avoid the conflict
Claim 1
A device, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
obtain a trajectory of a first object, associated with vehicles, robots, autonomous vehicles, or autonomous robots and a predicted trajectory of a second object that is moving;
detect a conflict between the first object and the second object based on a comparison of the trajectory of the first object and the predicted trajectory of the second object;
determine alternate routes for the first object,
wherein the alternate routes include a route segment with a predefined offset from a current route of the first object, and a transition segment disposed between the current route and a respective route segment of the alternate routes
wherein the transition segment connects the current route to the respective route segment;
evaluate routes, including the alternate routes, according to a metric that is based on:
at least one of a time or a distance to a point of approach between the first object and the second object; and
select a route, from the routes, to cause the first object to utilize the selected route to avoid the conflict
Related Application – 17/573,085
Claim 1
An apparatus for detecting and avoiding conflict along a current route of a robot, the apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store computer-readable program code; and processing circuitry configured to access the memory, and execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus to at least:
access a trajectory of the robot on the current route of the robot, and a predicted trajectory of a nearby moving object;
detect a conflict between the robot and the nearby moving object from a comparison of the robot on the trajectory of the robot on the current route and the nearby moving object on the predicted trajectory of the nearby moving object
determine alternate routes for the robot, each of the alternate routes including an alternative route segment having a predefined geometric offset from the current route such that the alternative route segment of the alternate routes is spaced apart from the current route, and a transition segment disposed between the current route and the respective alternative route segment of the alternate routes such that
the transition segment connects the current route to the respective alternative route segment of the alternate routes
evaluate routes including the alternate routes according to a cost metric that depends on a time or distance to a point of approach between the nearby moving object and the robot, and a distance from the current route
select a route from the routes for use in at least one of guidance, navigation or control of the robot to avoid the conflict;
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus to further cause the robot to travel the route as selected.
Claim 9
A method of detecting and avoiding conflict along a current route of a robot, the method comprising:
accessing a trajectory of the robot on the current route of the robot, and a predicted trajectory of a nearby moving object
detecting a conflict between the robot and the nearby moving object from a comparison of the robot on the trajectory of the robot on the current route and the nearby moving object on the predicted trajectory of the nearby moving object
determining alternate routes for the robot, each of the alternate routes including an alternative route segment having a predetermined geometric offset from the current route such that the alternative route segment of the alternate routes is spaced apart from the current route
a transition segment connects the current route to the respective alternative route segment of the alternate routes
evaluating routes including the alternate routes according to a cost metric that depends on a time or distance to a point of approach between the nearby moving object and the robot, and a distance from the current route;
selecting a route from the routes for use in at least one of guidance, navigation or control of the robot to avoid the conflict; causing the robot to travel the route as selected
Claim 17
A computer-readable storage medium for detecting and avoiding conflict along a current route of a robot, the computer-readable storage medium being non-transitory and having computer-readable program code stored therein that, in response to execution by processing circuitry, causes an apparatus to at least:
access a trajectory of the robot on the current route of the robot, and a predicted trajectory of a nearby moving object;
detect a conflict between the robot and the nearby moving object from a comparison of the robot on the trajectory of the robot on the current route and the nearby moving object on the predicted trajectory of the nearby moving object;
determine alternate routes for the robot, each of the alternate routes including an alternative route segment having a predefined geometric offset from the current route such that the alternative route segment of the alternate routes is spaced apart from the current route,
a transition segment disposed between the current route and the respective alternative route segment of the alternate routes such that the transition segment connects the current route to the respective alternative route segment of the alternate routes;
evaluate routes including the alternate routes according to a cost metric that depends on a time or distance to a point of approach between the nearby moving object and the robot, and a distance from the current route
select a route from the routes for use in at least one of guidance, navigation or control of the robot to avoid the conflict; wherein the computer-readable storage medium has further computer-readable program code stored therein that, in response to execution by the processing circuitry, causes the apparatus to further cause the robot to travel the route as selected.
The breadth of the current application claims would read on the narrow claims as depicted in the table above. These alterations in view of the related applications would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the related application and/or secondary references and the corresponding claims they are recited within. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would determine that the claimed limitations in the current application and the related application is not patentably distinct and would render the invention obvious. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
For example, patent claim 1 of 17/573,085 recites a method of accessing a trajectory of the robot on the current route of the robot, and a predicted trajectory of a nearby moving object. Therefore, patent claim 1 of 17/573,085 is in essence a “species of a generic invention of current application claim 1. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir.
1993)
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, 19-20, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giorelli Michele et al. (WO2020121215A1), hereinafter referred to as Michele in view of Brent Donald et al. (US2008183343A1), hereinafter referred to as Donald.
Regarding claim 1, Michele discloses: a device (see at least Michele, pg.1, lines 25-30, which discloses the first object (vehicle) associated with a vehicle assistance system for road safety), comprising: one or more memories and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (see at least Michele, pg.1, lines 25-30, pg.10, lines 4-7), configured to:
obtain a trajectory of a first object, associated with vehicles, robots, autonomous vehicles, or autonomous objects, and a predicted trajectory of a second object that is moving (see at least Michele, pg.4, lines 1-4 which discloses the trajectory calculation of a robot in part based on the motion data (including trajectory) of a second object (obstacles, stationary or moving,); pg.4, lines 5-10 discloses an instance of utilizing an obtained trajectory of a first object (vehicle) and predicted trajectory of a second object to determine an avoidance trajectory; pg.8, lines 4-9)
detect a conflict between the first object and the second object based on a comparison of the trajectory of the first object and the predicted trajectory of the second object (see at least Michele, pg.6, lines 5-10 discloses an example of verifying whether the obtained trajectory of a first object (vehicle) intersects a travel collision area of a second object (obstacle); pg. 10, lines lines 22-24, discloses the calculation of a collision area)
wherein the transition segment connects the current route to the respective route segment (see at least Michele, Fig.6, which discloses the obstacle avoidance trajectories, which are equivalent to alternate routes of the first object (vehicle) with a predetermined offset from the current trajectory of the first object that transitions from the current route to the alternate, transition segment connecting them; pg. 12, line 21-28, the calculation of trajectories compatible with the defined constraints and cost factors such as speed and time by accounting for predefined factors such as longitudinal distance offset; pg.17, lines 23-28, pg.18)
evaluate routes, including the alternate routes, according to a metric that is based on:
at least one of a time or a distance to a point of approach between the first object and the second object (see at least Michele, pg.8 which discloses the general process of evaluating various routes; pg. 12, line 21-28, the calculation of trajectories compatible with the defined constraints and cost factors such as speed and time by accounting for predefined factors such as longitudinal distance offset; pg.17, lines 23-28, pg.18, this means evaluating routes, including the alternate routes, according to a metric that is based on: at least one of a time or a distance to a point of approach between the first object and the second object )
select a route, from the routes, to cause the first object to utilize the selected route to avoid the conflict (see at least Michele, pg.6, lines 12-14; pg.18, lines 16-19 which discloses selecting the best trajectory (route) among all the possible trajectories with a smaller displacement)
Michele is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
determine alternate routes for the first object, wherein the alternate routes include a route segment with a predefined geometric offset from a current route of the first object, and a transition segment disposed between the current route and a respective route segment of the alternate routes (see at least Donald, ¶¶ [0004]-[0006], [0024], [0029], [0031]-[0032], which discloses constructing an offset path relative to an original route trajectory; a parallel path is positioned to the trajectory at an offset distance that may be predetermined, a geometric offset of spatial distance between parallel paths)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Michele to include determine alternate routes for the first object, wherein the alternate routes include a route segment with a predefined geometric offset from a current route of the first object, and a transition segment disposed between the current route and a respective route segment of the alternate routes as taught by Donald. Incorporating the teachings would allow for a method of constructing offsets that minimize deviation from an original trajectory and provides an improvement that increases efficiency of the offset in the event of traveling multiple trajectories, non-intersecting paths, and larger changes.
Regarding claim 3, Michele discloses: the device of claim 1, wherein the predefined offset is determined based on at least one of a type of the first object, a state of the first object, or a status of the first object (see at least Michele, pg. 12, line 21-28; pg.17, lines 23-28; pg.18, lines 16-19, which discloses the predefined offset based on a state and status of the first object)
Regarding claim 4, Michele discloses: the device of claim 1, wherein the metric is associated with a cost metric that is further based on at least one of terrain along the routes, or a state of an environment of the first object (see at least Michele, pg. 12, lines 11-26 which discloses a cost metric associated with the state of a collision environment; pg.12, lines 21-28, the calculation of trajectories compatible with the defined constraints and cost factors such as speed and time by accounting for predefined factors such as longitudinal distance offset; pg.17, lines 23-28, pg.18)
Regarding claim 7, Michele discloses: the device of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first object or the second object is associated with another device controlled by a trajectory definition system (see at least Michele, pg.1, lines 25-30, which discloses the first object (vehicle) associated with a vehicle assistance system for road safety)
Regarding claim 8, Michele discloses: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device (see at least Michele, pg.1, lines 25-30, pg.10, lines 4-7), cause the device to:
obtain a trajectory of a first object, associated with vehicles, robots, autonomous vehicles, or autonomous robots and a predicted trajectory of a second object (see at least Michele, pg.4, lines 1-4 which discloses the trajectory calculation of a robot in part based on the motion data (including trajectory) of a second object (obstacle; stationary or moving); pg.4, lines 5-10 discloses an instance of utilizing an obtained trajectory of a first object (vehicle) and predicted trajectory of a second object to determine an avoidance trajectory; pg.8, lines 4-9)
detect a conflict between the first object and the second object based on a comparison of the trajectory of the first object and the predicted trajectory of the second object (see at least Michele, pg.6, lines 5-10 discloses an example of verifying whether the obtained trajectory of a first object (vehicle) intersects a travel collision area of a second object (obstacle); pg. 10, lines lines 22-24, discloses the calculation of a collision area)
wherein the transition segment connects the current route to the respective route segment (see at least Michele, Fig.6, which discloses the obstacle avoidance trajectories, which are equivalent to alternate routes of the first object (vehicle) with a predetermined offset from the current trajectory of the first object that transitions from the current route to the alternate, transition segment connecting them; pg. 12, line 21-28, the calculation of trajectories compatible with the defined constraints and cost factors such as speed and time by accounting for predefined factors such as longitudinal distance offset; pg.17, lines 23-28, pg.18)
evaluate routes, including the alternate routes, according to a metric that is based on: at least one of a time or a distance to a point of approach between the first object and the second object (see at least Michele, pg.8 which discloses the general process of evaluating various routes; pg. 12, line 21-28, the calculation of trajectories compatible with the defined constraints and cost factors such as speed and time by accounting for predefined factors such as longitudinal distance offset; pg.17, lines 23-28, pg.18, this means evaluating routes, including the alternate routes, according to a metric that is based on: at least one of a time or a distance to a point of approach between the first object and the second object )
select a route, from the routes, to cause the first object to utilize the selected route to avoid the conflict (see at least Michele, pg.6, lines 12-14; pg.18, lines 16-19 which discloses selecting the best trajectory (route) among all the possible trajectories with a smaller displacement)
Michele is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, teaches: determine alternate routes for the first object, wherein the alternate routes include a route segment with a predefined geometric offset from a current route of the first object, and a transition segment disposed between the current route and a respective route segment of the alternate routes (see at least Donald, ¶¶ [0004]-[0006], [0024], [0029], [0031]-[0032], which discloses constructing an offset path relative to an original route trajectory; a parallel path is positioned to the trajectory at an offset distance that may be predetermined, a geometric offset of spatial distance between parallel paths, this means determine alternate routes for the first object, wherein the alternate routes include a route segment with a predefined geometric offset from a current route of the first object, and a transition segment disposed between the current route and a respective route segment of the alternate routes)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Michele to include determine alternate routes for the first object, wherein the alternate routes include a route segment with a predefined geometric offset from a current route of the first object, and a transition segment disposed between the current route and a respective route segment of the alternate routes as taught by Donald. Incorporating the teachings would allow for a method of constructing offsets that minimize deviation from an original trajectory and provides an improvement that increases efficiency of the offset in the event of traveling multiple trajectories, non-intersecting paths, and larger changes.
Regarding claim 10, Michele discloses: the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the predefined offset is determined based on at least one of a type of the first object, a state of the first object, or a status of the first object (see at least Michele, pg. 12, line 21-28; pg.17, lines 23-28; pg.18, lines 16-19, which discloses the predefined offset based on a state and status of the first object)
Regarding claim 11, Michele discloses: the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the metric is associated with a cost metric that is further based on at least one of terrain along the routes, or a state of an environment of the first object (see at least Michele, pg. 12, lines 11-26 which discloses a cost metric associated with the state of a collision environment; pg.12, lines 21-28, the calculation of trajectories compatible with the defined constraints and cost factors such as speed and time by accounting for predefined factors such as longitudinal distance offset; pg.17, lines 23-28, pg.18)
Regarding claim 14, Michele discloses: a method (see at least Michele, pg.1, lines 25-30, pg.10, lines 4-7), comprising:
obtaining, by a device, a trajectory of a first object, associated with vehicles, robots, autonomous vehicles, or autonomous robots and a predicted trajectory of a second object that is mobile (see at least Michele, pg.4, lines 1-4 which discloses the trajectory calculation in part based on the motion data (including trajectory) of a second object (obstacle, stationary or moving); pg.4, lines 5-10 discloses an instance of utilizing an obtained trajectory of a first object (vehicle) and predicted trajectory of a second object to determine an avoidance trajectory; pg.8, lines 4-9)
detecting, by the device, a conflict between the first object and the second object based on a comparison of the trajectory of the first object and the predicted trajectory of the second object (see at least Michele, pg.6, lines 5-10 discloses an example of verifying whether the obtained trajectory of a first object (vehicle) intersects a travel collision area of a second object (obstacle); pg. 10, lines 22-24, discloses the calculation of a collision area)
wherein the transition segment connects the current route to the respective route segment (see at least Michele, Fig.6, which discloses the obstacle avoidance trajectories, which are equivalent to alternate routes of the first object (vehicle) with a predetermined offset from the current trajectory of the first object that transitions from the current route to the alternate, transition segment connecting them; pg. 12, line 21-28, the calculation of trajectories compatible with the defined constraints and cost factors such as speed and time by accounting for predefined factors such as longitudinal distance offset; pg.17, lines 23-28, pg.18)
evaluating, by the device, routes, including the alternate routes, according to a metric that is based on: at least one of a time or a distance to a point of approach between the first object and the second object (see at least Michele, pg.8 which discloses the general process of evaluating various routes; pg. 12, line 21-28, the calculation of trajectories compatible with the defined constraints and cost factors such as speed and time by accounting for predefined factors such as longitudinal distance offset; pg.17, lines 23-28, pg.18, this means evaluating routes, including the alternate routes, according to a metric that is based on: at least one of a time or a distance to a point of approach between the first object and the second object)
selecting, by the device, a route, from the routes, to cause the first object to utilize the selected route to avoid the conflict (see at least Michele, pg.6, lines 12-14; pg.18, lines 16-19 which discloses selecting the best trajectory (route) among all the possible trajectories with a smaller displacement)
Michele is silent on, however, under the same field of endeavor, teaches: determining, by the device, alternate routes for the first object, wherein the alternate routes include a route segment with a predefined offset from a current route of the first object, and a transition segment disposed between the current route and a respective route segment of the alternate routes (see at least Donald, ¶¶ [0004]-[0006], [0024], [0029], [0031]-[0032], which discloses constructing an offset path relative to an original route trajectory; a parallel path is positioned to the trajectory at an offset distance that may be predetermined, a geometric offset of spatial distance between parallel paths, this means determine alternate routes for the first object, wherein the alternate routes include a route segment with a predefined geometric offset from a current route of the first object, and a transition segment disposed between the current route and a respective route segment of the alternate routes)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Michele to include determine alternate routes for the first object, wherein the alternate routes include a route segment with a predefined geometric offset from a current route of the first object, and a transition segment disposed between the current route and a respective route segment of the alternate routes as taught by Donald. Incorporating the teachings would allow for a method of constructing offsets that minimize deviation from an original trajectory and provides an improvement that increases efficiency of the offset in the event of traveling multiple trajectories, non-intersecting paths, and larger changes.
Regarding claim 16, Michele discloses: the method of claim 14, wherein the predefined offset is determined based on at least one of a type of the first object, a state of the first object, or a status of the first object (see at least Michele, pg. 12, line 21-28; pg.17, lines 23-28; pg.18, lines 16-19, which discloses the predefined offset based on a state and status of the first object)
Regarding claim 17, the method of claim 14, wherein the metric is associated with a cost metric that is further based on at least one of terrain along the routes, or a state of an environment of the first object (see at least Michele, pg. 12, lines 11-26 which discloses a cost metric associated with the state of a collision environment; pg.12, lines 21-28, the calculation of trajectories compatible with the defined constraints and cost factors such as speed and time by accounting for predefined factors such as longitudinal distance offset; pg.17, lines 23-28, pg.18)
Regarding claim 20, Michele discloses: the method of claim 14, wherein at least one of the first object or the second object is associated with another device controlled by a system (see at least Michele, pg.1, lines 25-30, which discloses the first object (vehicle) associated with a vehicle assistance system for road safety)
Regarding claim 22, Michele discloses: the device of claim 1, wherein the metric is further based on at least one of terrain along the routes, or a state of an environment of the robot (see at least Michele, pg. 12, lines 11-26 which discloses a cost metric associated with the state of a collision environment; pg.12, lines 21-28, the calculation of trajectories compatible with the defined constraints and cost factors such as speed and time by accounting for predefined factors such as longitudinal distance offset; pg.17, lines 23-28, pg.18)
Regarding claim 24, Michele discloses: the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the metric is further based on at least one of terrain along the routes, or a state of an environment of the robot (see at least Michele, pg. 12, lines 11-26 which discloses a cost metric associated with the state of a collision environment; pg.12, lines 21-28, the calculation of trajectories compatible with the defined constraints and cost factors such as speed and time by accounting for predefined factors such as longitudinal distance offset; pg.17, lines 23-28, pg.18)
Claims 5, 12, 18, 21, 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michele in view of Kim Tae Hyoung et al. (WO2020222408A1), hereinafter referred to as Hyoung.
Regarding claim 5, Michele is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Hyoung teaches: the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first object to return to the current route (see at least Hyoung, pg.26, which discloses a reverse path calculation step in the event that no alternative route, or transition segment (connection path) is calculated, or identified and the first object (robot) is instructed to return to the original waypoint path)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Michele to include wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first object to return to the current route as taught by Hyoung. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of Michele discloses a method for re-planning a trajectory, but does not directly imply that the vehicle returns to its original state trajectory. Incorporating the teaching would allow for an improvement to the base invention of Michele that provides contingency measures in the event that a connection path to avoid the incoming does not exist, or further re-planning of a trajectory.
Regarding claim 12, Michele is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Hyoung teaches: the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the one or more instructions further cause the device to cause the first object to return to the current route (see at least Hyoung, pg.26, which discloses a reverse path calculation step in the event that no alternative route, or transition segment (connection path) is calculated, or identified and the first object (robot) is instructed to return to the original waypoint path)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Michele to include wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first object to return to the current route as taught by Hyoung. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of Michele discloses a method for re-planning a trajectory, but does not directly imply that the vehicle returns to its original state trajectory. Incorporating the teaching would allow for an improvement to the base invention of Michele that provides contingency measures in the event that a connection path to avoid the incoming does not exist, or further re-planning of a trajectory.
Regarding claim 18, Michele is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Hyoung teaches: the method of claim 14, further comprising causing the first object to return to the current route (see at least Hyoung, pg.26, which discloses a reverse path calculation step in the event that no alternative route, or transition segment (connection path) is calculated, or identified and the first object (robot) is instructed to return to the original waypoint path)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Michele to include wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first object to return to the current route as taught by Hyoung. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of Michele discloses a method for re-planning a trajectory, but does not directly imply that the vehicle returns to its original state trajectory. Incorporating the teaching would allow for an improvement to the base invention of Michele that provides contingency measures in the event that a connection path to avoid the incoming does not exist, or further re-planning of a trajectory.
Regarding claim 21, Michele is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Hyoung teaches: the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: cause the first object to return to the current route during travel of the first object on the selected route (see at least Hyoung, pg.26, which discloses a reverse path calculation step in the event that no alternative route, or transition segment (connection path) is calculated, or identified and the first object (robot) is instructed to return to the original waypoint path)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Michele to include wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first object to return to the current route as taught by Hyoung. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of Michele discloses a method for re-planning a trajectory, but does not directly imply that the vehicle returns to its original state trajectory. Incorporating the teaching would allow for an improvement to the base invention of Michele that provides contingency measures in the event that a connection path to avoid the incoming does not exist, or further re-planning of a trajectory.
Regarding claim 23, Michele is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Hyoung teaches: the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the one or more instructions further cause the device to: cause the first object to return to the current route during travel of the first object on the selected route (see at least Hyoung, pg.26, which discloses a reverse path calculation step in the event that no alternative route, or transition segment (connection path) is calculated, or identified and the first object (robot) is instructed to return to the original waypoint path)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Michele to include wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first object to return to the current route as taught by Hyoung. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of Michele discloses a method for re-planning a trajectory but does not directly imply that the vehicle returns to its original state trajectory. Incorporating the teaching would allow for an improvement to the base invention of Michele that provides contingency measures in the event that a connection path to avoid the incoming does not exist, or further re-planning of a trajectory.
Regarding claim 25, Michele is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Hyoung teaches: the method of claim 14, further comprising: causing the first object to return to the current route during travel of the first object on the selected route (see at least Hyoung, pg.26, which discloses a reverse path calculation step in the event that no alternative route, or transition segment (connection path) is calculated, or identified and the first object (robot) is instructed to return to the original waypoint path)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Michele to include wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first object to return to the current route as taught by Hyoung. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of Michele discloses a method for re-planning a trajectory but does not directly imply that the vehicle returns to its original state trajectory. Incorporating the teaching would allow for an improvement to the base invention of Michele that provides contingency measures in the event that a connection path to avoid the incoming does not exist, or further re-planning of a trajectory.
Regarding claim 26, Michele is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Hyoung teaches: the method of claim 14, wherein the metric is further based on at least one of terrain along the routes, or a state of an environment of the robot (see at least Hyoung, pg.26, which discloses a reverse path calculation step in the event that no alternative route, or transition segment (connection path) is calculated, or identified and the first object (robot) is instructed to return to the original waypoint path)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Michele to include wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first object to return to the current route as taught by Hyoung. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of Michele discloses a method for re-planning a trajectory but does not directly imply that the vehicle returns to its original state trajectory. Incorporating the teaching would allow for an improvement to the base invention of Michele that provides contingency measures in the event that a connection path to avoid the incoming does not exist, or further re-planning of a trajectory.
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 KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, 6:00-8:00 pm (+ with flex).
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights