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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to application 19/040,097 filed 06/25/2026. Claims 1, 6-7, 11, 14-16, 19 and 20 have been amended. Claims 5, 10, 13 and 18 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-17, 19 and 20 are currently pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2026 been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/25/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/25/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jafari Tafti et al., US 20180348767 A1, in view of Gross et al., US 20180150080A1.
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) 1, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jafari Tafti et al., US 20180348767 A1, in view of Gross et al., US 20180150080A1, hereinafter referred to as Jafari Tafti and Gross, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Jafari Tafti discloses a system for local path planning (Embodiments according to the present disclosure provide a number of advantages. For example, embodiments according to the present disclosure enable computationally-efficient revision to a generated trajectory path for a vehicle – See at least ¶5), comprising:
a memory storing one or more instructions (The computer readable storage device or media may include volatile and nonvolatile storage in read-only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM), and keep-alive memory (KAM), for example – See at least ¶50):
a processor executing one or more of the instructions stored on the memory to perform (The controller includes at least one processor and a computer readable storage device or media. The processor can be any custom made or commercially available processor, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an auxiliary processor among several processors associated with the controller – See at least ¶50):
generating an envelop graph structure based on bounding box information for bounding boxes of two or more objects within an operating environment (In various embodiments, the controller includes a trajectory planning system that receives remote objects (i.e. two or more objects) as inputs and generates a collision-free and feasible trajectory for the vehicle to follow in the near future – See at least ¶63. Additionally, host vehicle (HV) state module provides position and kinematic constraints (bounding box information) for the current state of the host vehicle, including vehicle position, heading, velocity, and acceleration, for example and without limitation – See at least ¶64. The trajectory planning system processes the inputs in order to generate a trajectory output that in one embodiment satisfies the kinematic and dynamic constraints of the host vehicle as well as the free-space and road boundary constraints of the environment. The trajectory planning system, using a graph-based algorithm (envelop graph) – See at least ¶65); and
generating a local path planning trajectory from a start region to a goal region within the envelop graph structure based on a cost function and the envelop graph structure (In various embodiments, the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle and the trajectory planning system is incorporated into the autonomous vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the autonomous vehicle). The autonomous vehicle is, for example, a vehicle that is automatically controlled to carry passengers from one location to another. In various embodiments, one or more instructions of the controller are embodied in the trajectory planning system and, when executed by the processor, generates a trajectory output (i.e. a local path planning trajectory from a start region to a goal region) that addresses kinematic and dynamic constraints of the environment. For example, the instructions receive as input process sensor and map data. The instructions perform a graph-based approach (i.e. envelop graph structure) with a customized cost function to handle different road scenarios in both urban and highway roads – See at least ¶52).
Jafari Tafti fails to disclose wherein an edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between a first node and a second node only if the second node follows the first node longitudinally; and a controller controlling an actuator to execute the local path planning from a start region to a goal region within the envelop graph structure based on a cost function and the envelop graph structure for an autonomous vehicle.
However, Gross teaches:
wherein an edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between a first node and a second node only if the second node follows the first node longitudinally (Gross ¶83 and 102, disclosing an edge between first and second vertices only if the second vertex has a greater future travel distance d along the intended vehicle path than the first vertex, i.e. the second node follows the first node longitudinally); and
a controller controlling an actuator to execute the local path planning from a start region to a goal region within the envelop graph structure based on a cost function and the envelop graph structure for an autonomous vehicle (Gross ¶51, 53-54, 68, 74, 104-105, disclosing controller 34 generating controls signals to actuator system 30 to control the autonomous vehicle according to a selected path determined by searching a directed graph based on assigned edge costs, i.e. controlling an actuator to execute the cost based graph path for the autonomous vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jafari Tafti and include the feature of wherein an edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between a first node and a second node only if the second node follows the first node longitudinally; and a controller controlling an actuator to execute the local path planning from a start region to a goal region within the envelop graph structure based on a cost function and the envelop graph structure for an autonomous vehicle, as taught by Gross, because Gross teaches that such a directed graph arrangement permits the autonomous vehicle to determine a feasible path through an operating environment while accounting for obstacles and vehicle kinematic constraints and to automatically control the vehicle according to the determined path.
Regarding claim 11, Jafari-Tafti discloses a computer-implemented method for local path planning (The controller includes at least one processor and a computer readable storage device or media – See at least ¶50), comprising:
generating an envelop graph structure based on bounding box information for bounding boxes of two or more objects within an operating environment (In various embodiments, the controller includes a trajectory planning system that receives remote objects (i.e. two or more objects) as inputs and generates a collision-free and feasible trajectory for the vehicle to follow in the near future – See at least ¶63. Additionally, host vehicle (HV) state module provides position and kinematic constraints (bounding box information) for the current state of the host vehicle, including vehicle position, heading, velocity, and acceleration, for example and without limitation – See at least ¶64. The trajectory planning system processes the inputs in order to generate a trajectory output that in one embodiment satisfies the kinematic and dynamic constraints of the host vehicle as well as the free-space and road boundary constraints of the environment. The trajectory planning system, using a graph-based algorithm (envelop graph) – See at least ¶65);
generating a local path planning trajectory from a start region to a goal region within the envelop graph structure based on a cost function and the envelop graph structure (In various embodiments, the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle and the trajectory planning system is incorporated into the autonomous vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the autonomous vehicle). The autonomous vehicle is, for example, a vehicle that is automatically controlled to carry passengers from one location to another. In various embodiments, one or more instructions of the controller are embodied in the trajectory planning system and, when executed by the processor, generates a trajectory output (i.e. a local path planning trajectory from a start region to a goal region) that addresses kinematic and dynamic constraints of the environment. For example, the instructions receive as input process sensor and map data. The instructions perform a graph-based approach (i.e. envelop graph structure) with a customized cost function to handle different road scenarios in both urban and highway roads – See at least ¶52).
Jafari Tafti fails to disclose wherein an edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between a first node and a second node only if the second node follows the first node longitudinally; and a controller controlling an actuator to execute the local path planning trajectory from a start region to a goal region within the envelop graph structure based on a cost function and the envelop graph structure for an autonomous vehicle.
However, Gross teaches:
wherein an edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between a first node and a second node only if the second node follows the first node longitudinally (Gross ¶83 and 102, disclosing an edge between first and second vertices only if the second vertex has a greater future travel distance d along the intended vehicle path than the first vertex, i.e. the second node follows the first node longitudinally); and
a controller controlling an actuator to execute the local path planning trajectory from a start region to a goal region within the envelop graph structure based on a cost function and the envelop graph structure for an autonomous vehicle (Gross ¶51, 53-54, 68, 74, 104-105, disclosing controller 34 generating controls signals to actuator system 30 to control the autonomous vehicle according to a selected path determined by searching a directed graph based on assigned edge costs, i.e. controlling an actuator to execute the cost based graph path for the autonomous vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jafari Tafti and include the feature of wherein an edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between a first node and a second node only if the second node follows the first node longitudinally; and a controller controlling an actuator to execute the local path planning from a start region to a goal region within the envelop graph structure based on a cost function and the envelop graph structure for an autonomous vehicle, as taught by Gross, because Gross teaches that such a directed graph arrangement permits the autonomous vehicle to determine a feasible path through an operating environment while accounting for obstacles and vehicle kinematic constraints and to automatically control the vehicle according to the determined path.
Regarding claim 16, Jafari-Tafti discloses an autonomous vehicle with local path planning (The present invention generally relates to autonomous vehicles, and more particularly relates to systems and methods for trajectory planning in an autonomous vehicle – See at least ¶1), comprising:
a sensor detecting two or more objects within an operating environment (An autonomous vehicle includes at least one sensor that provides sensor data about objects within the vehicle's environment – See at least ¶13);
a memory storing one or more instructions (The computer readable storage device or media may include volatile and nonvolatile storage in read-only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM), and keep-alive memory (KAM), for example – See at least ¶50);
a processor executing one or more of the instructions stored on the memory to perform (The controller includes at least one processor and a computer readable storage device or media. The processor can be any custom made or commercially available processor, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an auxiliary processor among several processors associated with the controller – See at least ¶50):
generating bounding box information for bounding boxes of the two or more objects (In various embodiments, the controller includes a trajectory planning system that receives remote objects (i.e. two or more objects) as inputs and generates a collision-free and feasible trajectory for the vehicle to follow in the near future – See at least ¶63. Additionally, host vehicle (HV) state module provides position and kinematic constraints (bounding box information) for the current state of the host vehicle, including vehicle position, heading, velocity, and acceleration, for example and without limitation – See at least ¶64;
generating an envelop graph structure based on the bounding box information (Additionally, host vehicle (HV) state module provides position and kinematic constraints (bounding box information) for the current state of the host vehicle, including vehicle position, heading, velocity, and acceleration, for example and without limitation – See at least ¶64. The trajectory planning system processes the inputs in order to generate a trajectory output that in one embodiment satisfies the kinematic and dynamic constraints of the host vehicle as well as the free-space and road boundary constraints of the environment. The trajectory planning system, using a graph-based algorithm (envelop graph) – See at least ¶65); and
generating a local path planning trajectory from a start region to a goal region within the envelop graph structure based on a cost function and the envelop graph structure (In various embodiments, the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle and the trajectory planning system is incorporated into the autonomous vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the autonomous vehicle). The autonomous vehicle is, for example, a vehicle that is automatically controlled to carry passengers from one location to another. In various embodiments, one or more instructions of the controller are embodied in the trajectory planning system and, when executed by the processor, generates a trajectory output (i.e. a local path planning trajectory from a start region to a goal region) that addresses kinematic and dynamic constraints of the environment. For example, the instructions receive as input process sensor and map data. The instructions perform a graph-based approach (i.e. envelop graph structure) with a customized cost function to handle different road scenarios in both urban and highway roads – See at least ¶52).
Jafari Tafti fails to disclose a controller controlling an actuator to execute the local path planning trajectory from a start region to a goal region within the envelop graph structure based on a cost function and the envelop graph structure for an autonomous vehicle for the autonomous vehicle, wherein an edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between a first node and a second node only if the second node follows the first node longitudinally.
However, Gross teaches:
a controller controlling an actuator to execute the local path planning trajectory from a start region to a goal region within the envelop graph structure based on a cost function and the envelop graph structure for an autonomous vehicle for the autonomous vehicle (Gross ¶51, 53-54, 68, 74, 104-105, disclosing controller 34 generating controls signals to actuator system 30 to control the autonomous vehicle according to a selected path determined by searching a directed graph based on assigned edge costs, i.e. controlling an actuator to execute the cost based graph path for the autonomous vehicle),
wherein an edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between a first node and a second node only if the second node follows the first node longitudinally (Gross ¶83 and 102, disclosing an edge between first and second vertices only if the second vertex has a greater future travel distance d along the intended vehicle path than the first vertex, i.e. the second node follows the first node longitudinally).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jafari Tafti and include the feature of a controller controlling an actuator to execute the local path planning trajectory from a start region to a goal region within the envelop graph structure based on a cost function and the envelop graph structure for an autonomous vehicle for the autonomous vehicle, wherein an edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between a first node and a second node only if the second node follows the first node longitudinally, as taught by Gross, because Gross teaches that such a directed graph arrangement permits the autonomous vehicle to determine a feasible path through an operating environment while accounting for obstacles and vehicle kinematic constraints and to automatically control the vehicle according to the determined path.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-7, 12, 14-15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jafari Tafti et al., US 20180348767 A1, in view of Gross et al., US 20180150080A1, as applied to claims 1, 11 and 16 above and further in view of Floyd-Jones et al., US 20200377085 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jafari Tafti, Gross and Floyd-Jones, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross fail to disclose wherein the bounding box information includes a position, a size, and an orientation for a corresponding bounding box.
However, Floy-Jones teaches wherein the bounding box information includes a position, a size, and an orientation for a corresponding bounding box (For example as two-dimensional oriented bounding boxes, specified for instance by a size, location, and orientation (e.g., front, heading) – See at least ¶105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross and include the feature of wherein the bounding box information includes a position, a size, and an orientation for a corresponding bounding box, as taught by Floyd-Jones, due to the fact that vehicles are typically not randomly shaped and travel in what can easily be represented as a direction in a two-dimensional world, there may be a significant advantage to employing two-dimensional oriented bounding boxes to represent the primary agent (e.g., primary autonomous vehicle) (See at least ¶105 of Floyd-Jones).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross fail to disclose wherein the envelop graph structure includes a plurality of nodes defined by the position of corresponding bounding boxes.
However, Floyd-Jones teaches wherein the envelop graph structure includes a plurality of nodes defined by the position of corresponding bounding boxes (A motion planning method of operation in a processor-based system to perform motion planning via planning lattices (i.e. envelop graph structure) is described, where each planning lattice respectively comprises a plurality of nodes and edges, each node representative of a state of a primary vehicle which operates in an environment that includes one or more other vehicles and other obstacles, and each edge representative of a transition between a respective pair of the nodes. The method may be summarized as including: representing, by the processor-based system, the primary vehicle as a respective oriented bounding box (i.e. bounding boxes) – See at least ¶7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross and include the feature of wherein the envelop graph structure includes a plurality of nodes defined by the position of corresponding bounding boxes, as taught by Floyd-Jones, to perform motion planning to keep up with changes in the operational environment in real time to avoid collision with both dynamic and static obstacles to achieve the goal state (See at least ¶3 of Floyd-Jones).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross fail to disclose wherein the envelop graph structure includes a cubic spline path representation including nodes having a maximum lateral displacement from a reference path from the start region to the goal region.
However, Floyd-Jones teaches wherein the envelop graph structure includes a cubic spline path representation including nodes having a maximum lateral displacement from a reference path from the start region to the goal region (In cases where transit in a three-dimensional world can be effectively treated as transit in two-dimensions (e.g., ground based vehicles on conventional streets, roads and/or highways), it may be advantageous to represent objects as two-dimensional bounding boxes, for example two-dimensional oriented bounding boxes. In cases of transit in three-dimensions, it may be advantageous to represent the objects as three-dimensional boxes (rectangular prisms) rather than two-dimensional boxes. A curve may be represented, for example, as a spline, a b-spline, or any other parametric representation of a curve – See at least ¶135).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross and include the feature of wherein the envelop graph structure includes a cubic spline path representation including nodes having a maximum lateral displacement from a reference path from the start region to the goal region, as taught by Floyd-Jones, to perform motion planning to keep up with changes in the operational environment in real time to avoid collision with both dynamic and static obstacles to achieve the goal state (See at least ¶3 of Floyd-Jones).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross fail to disclose wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge does not intersect any bounding box.
However, Floyd-Jones teaches wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge does not intersect any bounding box (The method may be summarized as including: representing, by the processor-based system, the primary vehicle as a respective oriented bounding box; and for at least one of a plurality of the edges of the planning lattice, performing, by the processor-based system, oriented bounding box collision detection to determine whether the primary vehicle represented by the oriented bounding box will collide with representations of other vehicles or other obstacles in transitioning between a pair of states, the state of the pair represented by respective nodes of a pair of nodes that are connected by the respective edge of the planning lattice; and setting, by the processor-based system, a cost of the respective edge of a planning lattice to reflect at least one of the detected collision – See at least ¶7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross and include the feature of wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge does not intersect any bounding box, as taught by Floyd-Jones, to perform motion planning to keep up with changes in the operational environment in real time to avoid collision with both dynamic and static obstacles to achieve the goal state (See at least ¶3 of Floyd-Jones).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross fail to disclose wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge satisfies a predetermined lateral distance to longitudinal distance ratio.
However, Floyd-Jones teaches wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge satisfies a predetermined lateral distance to longitudinal distance ratio (The remote processor-based system may generate or determine fitted functions that represent the trajectories for each of a number of edges, the edges which represent transitions between states of a vehicle, where the states are represented as nodes in a planning lattice. While transitions are conventionally represented via motion equations, assessing collisions using motion equations is computationally intensive. In at least one implementation, a processor-based system may generate a set of fitted functions based on the motion equations, for each of a number of trajectories. The processor-based device may, for example, determine the fitted functions, during a configuration time that occurs before a runtime. The processor-based device may, for example determine the fitted functions based on information (e.g., wheel base, turning radius) supplied by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and may even be determined – See at least ¶131).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross and include the feature of wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge satisfies a predetermined lateral distance to longitudinal distance ratio, as taught by Floyd-Jones, to perform motion planning to keep up with changes in the operational environment in real time to avoid collision with both dynamic and static obstacles to achieve the goal state (See at least ¶3 of Floyd-Jones).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross fail to disclose wherein the envelop graph structure includes a cubic spline path representation including nodes having a maximum lateral displacement from a reference path from the start region to the goal region.
However, Floyd-Jones teaches wherein the envelop graph structure includes a cubic spline path representation including nodes having a maximum lateral displacement from a reference path from the start region to the goal region (In cases where transit in a three-dimensional world can be effectively treated as transit in two-dimensions (e.g., ground based vehicles on conventional streets, roads and/or highways), it may be advantageous to represent objects as two-dimensional bounding boxes, for example two-dimensional oriented bounding boxes. In cases of transit in three-dimensions, it may be advantageous to represent the objects as three-dimensional boxes (rectangular prisms) rather than two-dimensional boxes. A curve may be represented, for example, as a spline, a b-spline, or any other parametric representation of a curve – See at least ¶135).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross and include the feature of wherein the envelop graph structure includes a cubic spline path representation including nodes having a maximum lateral displacement from a reference path from the start region to the goal region, as taught by Floyd-Jones, to perform motion planning to keep up with changes in the operational environment in real time to avoid collision with both dynamic and static obstacles to achieve the goal state (See at least ¶3 of Floyd-Jones).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross fail to disclose wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge does not intersect any bounding box.
However, Floyd-Jones teaches wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge does not intersect any bounding box (The method may be summarized as including: representing, by the processor-based system, the primary vehicle as a respective oriented bounding box; and for at least one of a plurality of the edges of the planning lattice, performing, by the processor-based system, oriented bounding box collision detection to determine whether the primary vehicle represented by the oriented bounding box will collide with representations of other vehicles or other obstacles in transitioning between a pair of states, the state of the pair represented by respective nodes of a pair of nodes that are connected by the respective edge of the planning lattice; and setting, by the processor-based system, a cost of the respective edge of a planning lattice to reflect at least one of the detected collision – See at least ¶7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross and include the feature of wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge does not intersect any bounding box, as taught by Floyd-Jones, to perform motion planning to keep up with changes in the operational environment in real time to avoid collision with both dynamic and static obstacles to achieve the goal state (See at least ¶3 of Floyd-Jones).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross fail to disclose wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge satisfies a predetermined lateral distance to longitudinal distance ratio.
However, Floyd-Jones teaches wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge satisfies a predetermined lateral distance to longitudinal distance ratio (The remote processor-based system may generate or determine fitted functions that represent the trajectories for each of a number of edges, the edges which represent transitions between states of a vehicle, where the states are represented as nodes in a planning lattice. While transitions are conventionally represented via motion equations, assessing collisions using motion equations is computationally intensive. In at least one implementation, a processor-based system may generate a set of fitted functions based on the motion equations, for each of a number of trajectories. The processor-based device may, for example, determine the fitted functions, during a configuration time that occurs before a runtime. The processor-based device may, for example determine the fitted functions based on information (e.g., wheel base, turning radius) supplied by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and may even be determined – See at least ¶131).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross and include the feature of wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge satisfies a predetermined lateral distance to longitudinal distance ratio, as taught by Floyd-Jones, to perform motion planning to keep up with changes in the operational environment in real time to avoid collision with both dynamic and static obstacles to achieve the goal state (See at least ¶3 of Floyd-Jones).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross fail to disclose wherein the envelop graph structure includes a cubic spline path representation including nodes having a maximum lateral displacement from a reference path from the start region to the goal region.
However, Floyd-Jones teaches wherein the envelop graph structure includes a cubic spline path representation including nodes having a maximum lateral displacement from a reference path from the start region to the goal region (In cases where transit in a three-dimensional world can be effectively treated as transit in two-dimensions (e.g., ground based vehicles on conventional streets, roads and/or highways), it may be advantageous to represent objects as two-dimensional bounding boxes, for example two-dimensional oriented bounding boxes. In cases of transit in three-dimensions, it may be advantageous to represent the objects as three-dimensional boxes (rectangular prisms) rather than two-dimensional boxes. A curve may be represented, for example, as a spline, a b-spline, or any other parametric representation of a curve – See at least ¶135).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross and include the feature of wherein the envelop graph structure includes a cubic spline path representation including nodes having a maximum lateral displacement from a reference path from the start region to the goal region, as taught by Floyd-Jones, to perform motion planning to keep up with changes in the operational environment in real time to avoid collision with both dynamic and static obstacles to achieve the goal state (See at least ¶3 of Floyd-Jones).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross fail to disclose wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge does not intersect any bounding box.
However, Floyd-Jones teaches wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge does not intersect any bounding box (The method may be summarized as including: representing, by the processor-based system, the primary vehicle as a respective oriented bounding box; and for at least one of a plurality of the edges of the planning lattice, performing, by the processor-based system, oriented bounding box collision detection to determine whether the primary vehicle represented by the oriented bounding box will collide with representations of other vehicles or other obstacles in transitioning between a pair of states, the state of the pair represented by respective nodes of a pair of nodes that are connected by the respective edge of the planning lattice; and setting, by the processor-based system, a cost of the respective edge of a planning lattice to reflect at least one of the detected collision – See at least ¶7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross and include the feature of wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge does not intersect any bounding box, as taught by Floyd-Jones, to perform motion planning to keep up with changes in the operational environment in real time to avoid collision with both dynamic and static obstacles to achieve the goal state (See at least ¶3 of Floyd-Jones).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross fail to disclose wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge satisfies a predetermined lateral distance to longitudinal distance ratio.
However, Floyd-Jones teaches wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge satisfies a predetermined lateral distance to longitudinal distance ratio (The remote processor-based system may generate or determine fitted functions that represent the trajectories for each of a number of edges, the edges which represent transitions between states of a vehicle, where the states are represented as nodes in a planning lattice. While transitions are conventionally represented via motion equations, assessing collisions using motion equations is computationally intensive. In at least one implementation, a processor-based system may generate a set of fitted functions based on the motion equations, for each of a number of trajectories. The processor-based device may, for example, determine the fitted functions, during a configuration time that occurs before a runtime. The processor-based device may, for example determine the fitted functions based on information (e.g., wheel base, turning radius) supplied by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and may even be determined – See at least ¶131).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross and include the feature of wherein the edge of the envelop graph structure is generated between the first node and the second node only if the edge satisfies a predetermined lateral distance to longitudinal distance ratio, as taught by Floyd-Jones, to perform motion planning to keep up with changes in the operational environment in real time to avoid collision with both dynamic and static obstacles to achieve the goal state (See at least ¶3 of Floyd-Jones).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jafari Tafti et al., US 20180348767 A1, in view of Gross et al., US 20180150080A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Fan et al., US 20190086925 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jafari Tafti, Gross and Fan, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, Jafari Tafti discloses wherein the cost function is based on an average divergence from a reference path from the start region to the goal region, smoothness of the local path planning trajectory, an average minimum distance to the two or more objects, and a type of object (setting, by the processor-based system, a cost associated with the respective edge of the planning lattice based at least in part on: a parameterized cost function that represents at least two or more of: an obstacle type – See at least ¶56).
The combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross fail to disclose wherein the cost function is based on an average divergence from a reference path from the start region to the goal region, smoothness of the local path planning trajectory, an average minimum distance to the two or more objects.
However, Fan teaches wherein the cost function is based on an average divergence from a reference path from the start region to the goal region, smoothness of the local path planning trajectory, an average minimum distance to the two or more objects (In one embodiment, decision module generates a rough path profile based on a reference line (the reference line having been smoothed by smoothing module as described above) provided by routing module and based on obstacles and/or traffic information perceived by the ADV, surrounding the ADV. The rough path profile is generated by selecting points along the reference line. For each of the points, decision module moves the point to the left or right (e.g., candidate movements) of the reference line based on one or more obstacle decisions on how to encounter the object, while the rest of points remain steady. The candidate movements are performed iteratively using dynamic programming to path candidates in search of a path candidate with a lowest path cost using cost functions, as part of costs functions of FIG. 3A, thereby generating a rough path profile. Examples of cost functions include costs based on: a curvature of a route path, a distance from the ADV to perceived obstacles, and a distance of the ADV to the reference line – See at least ¶59 and FIG.3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jafari Tafti and Gross and include the feature of wherein the cost function is based on an average divergence from a reference path from the start region to the goal region, smoothness of the local path planning trajectory, an average minimum distance to the two or more objects, as taught by Fan, optimization a path based on constrained smoothing spline for autonomous driving vehicles (See at least ¶2 of Fan).
Regarding claim 9, Jafari Tafti discloses wherein the type of object includes a vehicle, a pedestrian, or a motorcycle (The sensor fusion data from the sensor fusion module includes a list of objects within the environment, such as remote road users and obstacles on the road and is a complete representation of the surrounding environment, including lane data and a list of all stationary and dynamic objects in the vicinity of the host vehicle – See at least ¶63).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jiwung Choi, US12296847B1 discloses determining low-cost and/or optimal driving trajectories for autonomous vehicles between various states in a driving environment. A lattice subgraph of lowest-cost trajectories associated with road segments in an environment may be precomputed off-vehicle, and provided to vehicles in the environment along with map data, lane graphs, etc. An autonomous vehicle may use the lattice subgraphs to determine costs associated with discrete entry points of the road segments along a driving route, and may perform additional computations using motion primitives and/or cost plots to determine costs associated with controlling the vehicle between various states to the discrete road segment entry points.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights