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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of foreign application DE10 2022 213 587.3, as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
"the second polygon and the at least two legs of the triangle" should read "the second polygon and the at least two legs of the at least one triangle" (claim 1, 10, 12)
“whereing” should read “wherein” (claim 3)
“the respective pivot point” should read “the
Three instances of “the trajectory segment” should read “the at least one curved trajectory segment” (claim 5)
“the distance between” should read “a
“A control device computer readable medium…” contains no transitional phrase and as such it is impossible to differentiate between the preamble and the body of the claim. Please amend to add a proper transitional phrase (claim 10)
The preamble of claim 12 is improper. It currently recites “A computer program comprising commands which prompt a control device to carry providing a travel trajectory…” (emphasis added). Please amend the preamble to be in proper form and be grammatically correct. For example, one possible solution would be to replace the word “carry” with “perform:”. (Claim 12)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 12 each recite "a first polygon, the circumference of which…" and "a second polygon, the circumference of which…". The recitation of a circumference of a polygon is unclear, because a circumference is a parameter that relates to circles or ellipses, not polygons.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the travel trajectory has at least one of a curvature of which changes continuously at least in sections, is a clothoid curve and is a polynomial-used as the travel trajectory.” It is unclear whether this claim requires all three of a continuously changing curvature, a clothoid curve, and a polynomial, or whether the claim intends that the travel trajectory has at least one feature of the group consisting of: a continuously changing curvature, a clothoid curve, and a polynomial.
Claim 10 recites “A control device computer readable medium with instructions…”. It is unclear whether the claim is directed toward a control device or a computer readable medium, or what the relationship is between the control device and the computer readable medium.
All dependent claims are further rejected due to claim dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 10 recites “A control device computer readable medium…”. Claim 10 may be (see rejection under 35 USC § 112(b)) directed to a computer-readable storage medium, which as written is not eligible subject matter as it is not directed to one of the four statutory categories.
The computer readable medium is an example of: Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave; (See MPEP 2106.03). Furthermore, the BRI of machine-readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves)(See MPEP 2106.03).
The Examiner suggests that the Applicant replace the term “computer readable medium” with the term “non-transitory computer readable medium” to the medium as recited in the claim(s) in order to properly render the claim(s) in statutory form in view of their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the originally filed specification. Applicant is suggested to review the Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009, under section II. Subsection (c), which describes a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” being patent-eligible subject matter.
Claim 11 is similarly rejected.
Claim 12 recites “A computer program…”. One of ordinary skill in the art could interpret the computer program as software, per se. As defined in the specification, it is clear that each of the steps is a software instruction to be executed, thus constitutes functional descriptive material. When recorded on some computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. While the claim recites a storage medium in the program product, it is noted that storage medium can also take the form of transitory medium such as carrier waves, i.e., electromagnetic waves that can be modulated, as in frequency, amplitude, or phase, to transmit information signals. Additionally, propagation medium can take the form of acoustic or light waves, such as those generated during radio wave and infrared data communications. Therefore, claim 12 is not limited to a statutory subject matter and is therefore non-statutory.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, as determined by the Subject Matter Eligibility Test
detailed below.
Step 1
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Independent claims 1 are directed towards a method. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1, and the corresponding dependent claims 2-9 are directed to a statutory category of invention under step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step
2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Regarding Prong 1, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those shown in bold below.
A method for determining a travel envelope along a travel trajectory comprising:
providing the travel trajectory of the vehicle, wherein the travel trajectory comprises at least one curved trajectory segment, wherein a curvature of the travel trajectory has a constant sign in the at least one curved trajectory segment;
determining at least a first polygon, the circumference of which describes a vehicle contour at a first vehicle position on the at least one curved trajectory segment, and a second polygon, the circumference of which describes the vehicle contour at a second vehicle position on the at least one curved trajectory segment;
establishing a pivot point of the vehicle contour, which has the greatest distance from a curved line during a movement of the vehicle from the first vehicle position to the second vehicle position;
approximating the curved line by at least two legs of at least one triangle which encloses the curved line;
forming at least one travel envelope segment of the at least one curved trajectory segment from two convex polygons from the first polygon, the second polygon and the at least two legs of the at least one triangle; and
determining the travel envelope from the at least one travel envelope segment.
These limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and/or mathematical processes and therefore recites abstract ideas. For example, “determining at least a first polygon, the circumference of which describes a vehicle contour at a first vehicle position on the at least one curved trajectory segment, and a second polygon, the circumference of which describes the vehicle contour at a second vehicle position on the at least one curved trajectory segment; establishing a pivot point of the vehicle contour, which has the greatest distance from a curved line during a movement of the vehicle from the first vehicle position to the second vehicle position; approximating the curved line by at least two legs of at least one triangle which encloses the curved line; forming at least one travel envelope segment of the at least one curved trajectory segment from two convex polygons from the first polygon, the second polygon and the at least two legs of the at least one triangle; and determining the travel envelope from the at least one travel envelope segment” may be interpreted as a mental processes, sometimes of mathematical nature, which can be performed in the human mind or by a human with a pencil and paper, such as drawing out shapes representing vehicles, connecting line segments based on the trajectory, and subsequently drawing more lines representative of approximations of anticipated trajectories. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites abstract limitations analogous to those identified above with respect to claim 1, and therefore recites abstract ideas per the same analysis.
Step 2A, Prong 2
If the claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A, Prong 2. In Step 2A, Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Regarding Prong 2, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in MPEP § 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Claim 1 recites additional elements including those underlined below.
A method for determining a travel envelope along a travel trajectory comprising:
providing the travel trajectory of the vehicle, wherein the travel trajectory comprises at least one curved trajectory segment, wherein a curvature of the travel trajectory has a constant sign in the at least one curved trajectory segment;
determining at least a first polygon, the circumference of which describes a vehicle contour at a first vehicle position on the at least one curved trajectory segment, and a second polygon, the circumference of which describes the vehicle contour at a second vehicle position on the at least one curved trajectory segment;
establishing a pivot point of the vehicle contour, which has the greatest distance from a curved line during a movement of the vehicle from the first vehicle position to the second vehicle position;
approximating the curved line by at least two legs of at least one triangle which encloses the curved line;
forming at least one travel envelope segment of the at least one curved trajectory segment from two convex polygons from the first polygon, the second polygon and the at least two legs of the at least one triangle; and
determining the travel envelope from the at least one travel envelope segment.
The recitation of “providing the travel trajectory of the vehicle…” amounts to mere data receiving, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong 2, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether it provides an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements
As discussed above, “providing the travel trajectory of the vehicle…”amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the various limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., further mathematical processes characterizing the shapes created in the independent claim). Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1.
Examiner notes that incorporation of specification-supported vehicle control steps may overcome the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 USC § 101. For example, paragraph [0020] in the instant application’s specification recites that “In the event that no collision is ascertained for the travel trajectory, the vehicle can be moved, for example, partially autonomously or completely autonomously along the travel trajectory, or at least along a section of the travel trajectory.” An additional limitation in the independent claims 1 and 10 incorporating this concept from paragraph [0020] in a positively recited vehicle control step may overcome the rejection for claims 1-11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-5, 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230347880 A1 Clawson; Taylor Scott et al. (hereinafter Clawson), in view of H. Fuji, J. Xiang, Y. Tazaki, B. Levedahl and T. Suzuki, "Trajectory planning for automated parking using multi-resolution state roadmap considering non-holonomic constraints," 2014 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Proceedings, Dearborn, MI, USA, 2014, pp. 407-413, doi: 10.1109/IVS.2014.6856433. (hereinafter Fuji).
Regarding claim 1, Clawson discloses: A method for determining a travel envelope along a travel trajectory (see Clawson at least [0007] Systems and techniques for determining a buffer for use in systems that may detect objects in an environment and facilitate the avoidance of such objects) comprising:
providing the travel trajectory of the vehicle, wherein the travel trajectory comprises at least one curved trajectory segment, wherein a curvature of the travel trajectory has a constant sign in the at least one curved trajectory segment (see Clawson at least [0028] the center curve of the predicted region of travel 114 may be divided into three segments and [0045] the angle 221 (e.g. between the vector representing the direction of travel according to the trajectory and a vector normal to the front bumper position represented by points 208a, 210a, and 212a) may indicate the direction of turn associated with the segment 220 (e.g., towards the right));
determining at least a first polygon, the perimeter of which describes a vehicle contour at a first vehicle position on the at least one curved trajectory segment (see Clawson at least [0034] a bounding box 204 that includes data representing (e.g., approximate, estimated, and/or detected) boundaries and/or other data associated with the vehicle 202);
establishing a pivot point of the vehicle contour, which has the greatest distance from a curved line during a movement of the vehicle from the first vehicle position to the second vehicle position (see Clawson at least [0026] the vehicle computing system may determine a predicted position of the vehicle 106's front bumper 108 for the individual segments of the center curve. For example, the vehicle computing system may determine the predicted bumper positions at the “top,” or farthest endpoint of the individual segments from the vehicle);
approximating the curved line by at least two legs of at least one triangle (see Clawson at least [0028] The (e.g., tangent or perpendicular) vectors at the endpoints of the bumper 108 at the predicted positions may be used to determine edges of polygons for the individual segments, in turn determining the polygonal buffer sections 122, 124, and 126);
forming at least one travel envelope segment of the at least one curved trajectory segment from two convex polygons from the first polygon, (see Clawson at least [0052] Using the polygons 236, 238, and 240 as illustrated in FIG. 2C, the vehicle computing system may determine a convex polygonal buffer region); and
determining the travel envelope from the at least one travel envelope segment (see Clawson at least [0052] Referring now to FIG. 2D, the vehicle computing system of vehicle 202 may combine the polygons 236, 238, and 240 into aggregated or intermediate polygon 242).
Clawson does not teach: a second polygon, the perimeter of which describes the vehicle contour at a second vehicle position on the at least one curved trajectory segment, and approximating the curved line by at least two legs of at least one triangle which encloses the curved line.
However, Fuji teaches: a second polygon, the perimeter of which describes the vehicle contour at a second vehicle position on the at least one curved trajectory segment (see Fuji at least [pg. 410, section C, para. 3, beginning with “The collision avoidance”] the shape of the vehicle and the parking environment are expressed as polygons. Next, the region that the vehicle sweeps while it moves along a trajectory is also approximated by a polygon), and
approximating the curved line by at least two legs of at least one triangle which encloses the curved line (see Fuji at least [pg. 408, section III, para. 2, beginning with “The F-trajectory”] an isosceles triangle is constructed as shown in the figure. Here, one corner of the triangle may be either p or p′ and [Fig. 2] each trajectory curve segment is contained within triangle legs).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle swept area determination method disclosed by Clawson to include the polygonal representation of the vehicle at the starting and ending positions of the trajectory of Fuji. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a polygon representing the swept area traveled by the vehicle during a maneuver can be subsequently used to determine whether such a trajectory would intersect with other objects in the environment, as suggested by Fuji (see Fuji at least [pg. 408, section III, para. 2, beginning with “The F-trajectory”] each pair of line segments of this polygon and the polygon expressing the parking environment is checked for intersection).
Regarding claim 2, Clawson and Fuji disclose: The method according to Claim 1, wherein the travel trajectory has at least one of a curvature of which changes continuously at least in sections, is a clothoid curve and is a polynomial-used as the travel trajectory (see Fuji at least [pg. 408, section III, para. 1, beginning with “In this section”] two basic trajectories are defined: the F-trajectory, in which the vehicle drives forward, and the R-trajectory, in which the vehicle drives in reverse. These basic trajectories are characterized by two symmetric clothoid segments and a straight line segment).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle swept area determination method disclosed by Clawson and Fuji to include the clothoid trajectory representations of Fuji. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because clothoid segments represent the different types of vehicle trajectories that are considered in the representation of the vehicle maneuver, as suggested by Fuji (see Fuji at least [pg. 408, section III, para. 1, beginning with “In this section”] Four different types of trajectories are considered based on the direction of vehicle movement (forward or reverse) and the relationship between the starting and ending configurations).
Regarding claim 3, Clawson and Fuji disclose: The method according to Claim 1, wherein the vehicle contour described by the first polygon and the second polygon corresponds to the actual contour of the vehicle increased by a safety margin (see Clawson at least [0036] the width of the predicted region of travel 214 may be different than the width of the vehicle 202. For example, the width of the predicted region of travel 214 may be wider than the width of the vehicle 202 to provide an increased margin of safety in determining a buffer region).
Regarding claim 4, Clawson and Fuji disclose: The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one triangle is formed by at least two tangents on the curved line in the pivot point in the first position and the second position (see Clawson at least [0044] tangent vectors 224 and 226 extend outwards from the predicted region of travel 214, intersecting at intersection 232, which necessarily lies outside of the predicted region of travel 214) and a straight line connecting the contact points of the tangents on the curved line (see Fuji at least [pg. 408, section III, para. 2, beginning with “The F-trajectory”] First, two lines l and l′ are extended from p and p′ in the direction θ and θ′ +π, respectively. Next, an isosceles triangle is constructed as shown in the figure. Here, one corner of the triangle may be either p or p′ and [Fig. 2] each trajectory curve segment triangle contains a line connecting p to p’).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle swept area determination method disclosed by Clawson and Fuji to include the triangular trajectory representations of Fuji. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the triangles define the space covered by the trajectory, including a line connecting the configuration points, as suggested by Fuji (see Fuji at least [pg. 408, section III, para. 1, beginning with “In this section”] the representation of a trajectory connecting two configurations given by (p,θ) to (p′,θ′). Four different types of trajectories are considered based on the direction of vehicle movement (forward or reverse) and the relationship between the starting and ending configurations).
Regarding claim 5, Clawson and Fuji disclose: The method according to claim 1, wherein the first vehicle position is located at a starting point of the trajectory segment and the second vehicle position is located at an end point of the trajectory segment, or at least one of the first vehicle position and the second vehicle position is located between a starting point and an end point of the trajectory segment (see Clawson at least [0059] The trajectory 306 may include a stopping point 308 that serves as the terminal point of the trajectory. The buffer region 318 (emphasized in this figure) may be the final trajectory-based buffer region providing a buffer to ensure that the vehicle 302 detects objects up to the stopping point 308).
Regarding claim 7, Clawson and Fuji disclose: The method according to claim 1, wherein the two convex polygons are formed such that, together, they completely comprise at least the first polygon, the second polygon and the area comprised by the at least one triangle (see Clawson at least [0015] such regions may be determined substantially continuously and/or incrementally at particular points along a trajectory (e.g., at time and/or distance increments). By using a sequence of buffers that capture the entirety of a region of predicted travel and extend beyond the path of predicted travel, the systems and techniques described herein may increase the safety of operating a vehicle in an environment).
Regarding claim 8, Clawson and Fuji disclose: The method according claim 1, further comprising performing a collision check as a function of the determined travel envelope and map information which describes at least one object in the environment of the travel trajectory (see Clawson at least [0063] a vehicle computing system may initially perform a coarse collision check to determine whether a predicted position of an object in the environment overlaps with a determined convex polygonal buffer region and [0071] the maps 428 can be used in connection with the localization component 420, the perception component 422, and/or the planning component 424 to determine a location of the vehicle 402, identify objects in an environment, and/or generate routes and/or trajectories to navigate within an environment).
Regarding claim 9, Clawson and Fuji disclose: The method according to Claim 8, further comprising determining a route to be driven by the vehicle along the travel trajectory without collision when at least one object colliding with the vehicle during movement along the travel trajectory is determined during the collision check (see Clawson at least and [0013] performing collision avoidance operations (e.g., in response to detecting an obstacle) to configure the vehicle to avoid colliding with a detected object that may be within a convex polygonal buffer region. In other words, the vehicle computing system may control the vehicle to initiate stopping or maneuvering actions such that the vehicle may avoid colliding with an obstacle detected within a convex polygonal buffer region).
Regarding claim 10, Clawson discloses: A control device computer readable medium with instructions (see Clawson at least [0089] one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions and [0013] the vehicle computing system may control the vehicle) for:
providing a travel trajectory of a vehicle, wherein the travel trajectory comprises at least one curved trajectory segment, wherein a curvature of the travel trajectory has a constant sign in the at least one curved trajectory segment (see Clawson at least [0028] the center curve of the predicted region of travel 114 may be divided into three segments and [0045] the angle 221 (e.g. between the vector representing the direction of travel according to the trajectory and a vector normal to the front bumper position represented by points 208a, 210a, and 212a) may indicate the direction of turn associated with the segment 220 (e.g., towards the right));
determining at least a first polygon, the perimeter of which describes a vehicle contour at a first vehicle position on the at least one curved trajectory segment (see Clawson at least [0034] a bounding box 204 that includes data representing (e.g., approximate, estimated, and/or detected) boundaries and/or other data associated with the vehicle 202);
establishing a pivot point of the vehicle contour, which has the greatest distance from a curved line during a movement of the vehicle from the first vehicle position to the second vehicle position (see Clawson at least [0026] the vehicle computing system may determine a predicted position of the vehicle 106's front bumper 108 for the individual segments of the center curve. For example, the vehicle computing system may determine the predicted bumper positions at the “top,” or farthest endpoint of the individual segments from the vehicle);
approximating the curved line by at least two legs of at least one triangle (see Clawson at least [0028] The (e.g., tangent or perpendicular) vectors at the endpoints of the bumper 108 at the predicted positions may be used to determine edges of polygons for the individual segments, in turn determining the polygonal buffer sections 122, 124, and 126);
forming at least one travel envelope segment of the at least one curved trajectory segment from two convex polygons from the first polygon, (see Clawson at least [0052] Using the polygons 236, 238, and 240 as illustrated in FIG. 2C, the vehicle computing system may determine a convex polygonal buffer region); and
determining the travel envelope from the at least one travel envelope segment (see Clawson at least [0052] Referring now to FIG. 2D, the vehicle computing system of vehicle 202 may combine the polygons 236, 238, and 240 into aggregated or intermediate polygon 242).
Clawson does not teach: a second polygon, the perimeter of which describes the vehicle contour at a second vehicle position on the at least one curved trajectory segment; and approximating the curved line by at least two legs of at least one triangle which encloses the curved line.
However, Fuji teaches: a second polygon, the perimeter of which describes the vehicle contour at a second vehicle position on the at least one curved trajectory segment (see Fuji at least [pg. 410, section C, para. 3, beginning with “The collision avoidance”] the shape of the vehicle and the parking environment are expressed as polygons. Next, the region that the vehicle sweeps while it moves along a trajectory is also approximated by a polygon); and
approximating the curved line by at least two legs of at least one triangle which encloses the curved line (see Fuji at least [pg. 408, section III, para. 2, beginning with “The F-trajectory”] an isosceles triangle is constructed as shown in the figure. Here, one corner of the triangle may be either p or p′ and [Fig. 2] each trajectory curve segment is contained within triangle legs).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle control device disclosed by Clawson to include the polygonal representation of the vehicle at the starting and ending positions of the trajectory of Fuji. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a polygon representing the swept area traveled by the vehicle during a maneuver can be subsequently used to determine whether such a trajectory would intersect with other objects in the environment, as suggested by Fuji (see Fuji at least [pg. 408, section III, para. 2, beginning with “The F-trajectory”] each pair of line segments of this polygon and the polygon expressing the parking environment is checked for intersection).
Regarding claim 11, Clawson and Fuji disclose: The control device according to Claim 10, wherein the control device is for the vehicle (see Clawson at least [0013] the vehicle computing system may control the vehicle.
Regarding claim 12, Clawson discloses: A computer program comprising commands which prompt a control device (see Clawson at least [0087] The memory 418 and 446 can store an operating system and one or more software applications, instructions, programs, and/or data to implement the methods described herein and the functions attributed to the various systems and [0013] the vehicle computing system may control the vehicle) to carry
providing a travel trajectory of a vehicle, wherein the travel trajectory comprises at least one curved trajectory segment, wherein a curvature of the travel trajectory has a constant sign in the at least one curved trajectory segment (see Clawson at least [0028] the center curve of the predicted region of travel 114 may be divided into three segments and [0045] the angle 221 (e.g. between the vector representing the direction of travel according to the trajectory and a vector normal to the front bumper position represented by points 208a, 210a, and 212a) may indicate the direction of turn associated with the segment 220 (e.g., towards the right));
determining at least a first polygon. the circumference of which describes a vehicle contour at a first vehicle position on the at least one perimeter trajectory segment (see Clawson at least [0034] a bounding box 204 that includes data representing (e.g., approximate, estimated, and/or detected) boundaries and/or other data associated with the vehicle 202);
establishing a pivot point of the vehicle contour, which has the greatest distance from a curved line during a movement of the vehicle from the first vehicle position to the second vehicle position (see Clawson at least [0026] the vehicle computing system may determine a predicted position of the vehicle 106's front bumper 108 for the individual segments of the center curve. For example, the vehicle computing system may determine the predicted bumper positions at the “top,” or farthest endpoint of the individual segments from the vehicle);
approximating the curved line by at least two legs of at least one triangle (see Clawson at least [0028] The (e.g., tangent or perpendicular) vectors at the endpoints of the bumper 108 at the predicted positions may be used to determine edges of polygons for the individual segments, in turn determining the polygonal buffer sections 122, 124, and 126);
forming at least one travel envelope segment of the at least one curved trajectory segment from two convex polygons from the first polygon, (see Clawson at least [0052] Using the polygons 236, 238, and 240 as illustrated in FIG. 2C, the vehicle computing system may determine a convex polygonal buffer region); and
determining the travel envelope from the at least one travel envelope segment (see Clawson at least [0052] Referring now to FIG. 2D, the vehicle computing system of vehicle 202 may combine the polygons 236, 238, and 240 into aggregated or intermediate polygon 242).
Clawson does not teach: a second polygon, the perimeter of which describes the vehicle contour at a second vehicle position on the at least one curved trajectory segment; and approximating the curved line by at least two legs of at least one triangle which encloses the curved line.
However, Fuji teaches: a second polygon, the perimeter of which describes the vehicle contour at a second vehicle position on the at least one curved trajectory segment (see Fuji at least [pg. 410, section C, para. 3, beginning with “The collision avoidance”] the shape of the vehicle and the parking environment are expressed as polygons. Next, the region that the vehicle sweeps while it moves along a trajectory is also approximated by a polygon); and
approximating the curved line by at least two legs of at least one triangle which encloses the curved line (see Fuji at least [pg. 408, section III, para. 2, beginning with “The F-trajectory”] an isosceles triangle is constructed as shown in the figure. Here, one corner of the triangle may be either p or p′ and [Fig. 2] each trajectory curve segment is contained within triangle legs).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle swept area determination computer program disclosed by Clawson to include the polygonal representation of the vehicle at the starting and ending positions of the trajectory of Fuji. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a polygon representing the swept area traveled by the vehicle during a maneuver can be subsequently used to determine whether such a trajectory would intersect with other objects in the environment, as suggested by Fuji (see Fuji at least [pg. 408, section III, para. 2, beginning with “The F-trajectory”] each pair of line segments of this polygon and the polygon expressing the parking environment is checked for intersection).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clawson, in view of Fuji, further in view of US 20240061448 A1 Casbeer; David et al. (hereinafter Casbeer).
Regarding claim 6, Clawson and Fuji disclose: The method according to claim 1.
Clawson and Fuji do not teach: wherein the distance between the first vehicle position and the second vehicle position along the travel trajectory is established as a function of a height limit value which describes a maximum permissible height for the at least one triangle.
However, Casbeer teaches: wherein the distance between the first vehicle position and the second vehicle position along the travel trajectory is established as a function of a height limit value which describes a maximum permissible height for the at least one triangle (see Casbeer at least [0055] FIG. 2 shows an example of a quadratic Bezier curve with its control points. Bézier curves have the following properties which makes them well suited for path planning: (i) a Bezier curve always starts at the first control point and ends at the final control point; (ii) the tangent of the curve at these end points aligns with the line passing through the two end control points; (iii) the Bezier curve always lies inside the convex hull of the control points).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle swept area determination method disclosed by Clawson and Fuji to include the use of Bézier curves for determination of trajectory planning of Casbeer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the constraints of Bézier curves in path planning account for environmental concerns such as obstacle avoidance margins, as suggested by Casbeer (see Casbeer at least [0055] This property makes them adaptable for path planning in the presence of obstacles, where one can appropriately constrain the control points such that the associated convex hull does not intersect with the obstacles, and construct a feasible path).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 111309013 A YAN, FANG et al. discloses a collision distance determining method and system, vehicle, storage medium, the method comprising: obtaining the vehicle travelling envelope and position profile of the barrier; if it is detected that the vehicle and the obstacle having collision risk according to the driving envelope and the position profile, determining the obstacle on the N collision point of collision judging condition according to the running route track, obtaining N contour points corresponding to N collision point on the vehicle, the travel distance between contour points corresponding to the collision point of each of the N for solving, obtaining N distance values, finally the distance value N distance with the minimum value is determined as the collision distance between the vehicle and the obstacle. The embodiment of the invention can be obtained quickly collision distance between the vehicle and the obstacle, so as to improve the timeliness of the avoidance route adjustment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLE ROSE KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1742. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1700 ET M-F.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ELLE ROSE KNUDSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/25/26
Prosecution Insights