DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-12, filed as preliminary amendment, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Abstract
3. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
4A. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 1 is directed to an apparatus and claim 5 is directed to a method, which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 5, 1 and 9 recite: detecting positions and shapes of objects existing around while a mobile body is moving on a reference path; determining that an object that has a risk of collision with the mobile body among the objects is an obstacle;
calculating, based on a distance from the obstacle, a start point and an end point of an avoidance path that avoids collision with the obstacle; calculating, based on a distance from the obstacle, a turn path on which it is possible to turn without colliding with the obstacle; and complementing, based on a Dubins path, a path between the start point and the turn path and a path between the turn path and the end point to calculate the avoidance path.
These limitations can be performed in human mind. this is the method This step under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a mental process, more specifically, detecting positions and shapes of objects existing around while a mobile body is moving on a reference path; determining that an object that has a risk of collision with the mobile body among the objects is an obstacle; calculating, based on a distance from the obstacle, a start point and an end point of an avoidance path that avoids collision with the obstacle; calculating, based on a distance from the obstacle, a turn path on which it is possible to turn without colliding with the obstacle; and complementing, based on a Dubins path, a path between the start point and the turn path and a path between the turn path and the end point to calculate the avoidance path.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation a certain method of a concept performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), then it falls within the “mental process” calculating path. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claims recite processors which are recited only with a very high level of generality and nothing in the claims preclude the steps from being practically performed in the human mind.
Thus claims 5, 1 and 9 recite a mental process (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). In particular, the claims only recite the steps of: detecting positions and shapes of …a mobile body is moving on a reference path; determining that an object that has a risk of collision ….with the mobile body among the objects is an obstacle; calculating,… a start point and an end point of an avoidance path…..; calculating, … a turn path on which it is possible to turn without colliding with the obstacle; and complementing, …. a path between the start point and the turn path and a path between the turn path and the end point to calculate the avoidance path.
The claims recite processors which are recited only very high level of generality and it do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 5,1 and 9 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the vehicle to perform the steps of claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor/ device it cannot provide an inventive concept.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. At least the data gathering/ generating by the sensor/computer recited in the claim are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (WURC).
The MPEP provides support that the additional limitations in the claim are directed to well-understood routine and conventional steps:
MPEP 2106.05(d) II recites:
II. ELEMENTS THAT THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED AS WELL-UNDERSTOOD, ROUTINE, CONVENTIONAL ACTIVITY IN PARTICULAR FIELDS
Because examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, as elements that describe well-understood, routine activities, the following section provides examples of elements that have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields. It should be noted, however, that many of these examples failed to satisfy other Step 2B considerations (e.g., because they were recited at a high level of generality and thus were mere instructions to apply an exception, or were insignificant extra-solution activity). Thus, examiners should carefully analyze additional elements in a claim with respect to all relevant Step 2B considerations, including this consideration, before making a conclusion as to whether they amount to an inventive concept.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681,1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claims 5, 1 and 9 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim do not provide significantly more).
None of the dependent claims when taken separately or in combination with each dependent claim with parent claim overcomes the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible. Therefore, Claims 6-8, 2-4 and 10-12 are also non-statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu et al. ( WO-2022-130945 A1) in view of Park (USP 2021/0197807) in view of Kono et al. ( JP-2021-060324) in view of Zhang eta l. (CN-114779210).
6. Claims 1, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu et al. ( WO-2022-130945) in view of Park (USP 2021/0197807) in view of Kono et al. ( JP-2021-060324).
As Per Claim 1, Hiramatsu et al. ( Hiramatsu) teaches, an information processing apparatus (an automated driving system1,[0012] [0008]Fig.1) comprising: at least one memory storing instructions ( via memory 19); and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions ( via control device 11,1 2, [0007],[0008], [0034]); to: detect positions and shapes of objects around a mobile body; ([0035]) and determine, as an obstacle, an object that is on a movement path of the mobile body among the objects; (via an obstacle sensor 18 that detects obstacles that are located in front of, in beside, and behind a work vehicle 10 (corresponding to the "moving body"), and a detection processing device 12 that identifies the positions and sizes of said obstacles (corresponding to the "positions and shapes of objects") (the obstacle sensor 18 and the detection processing device 12 correspond to the "object-sensing means") (see paragraphs [0029]-[0032], [0035] -0036], , and [0038]); calculate, based on a distance from the obstacle, a start point and an end point of an avoidance path that avoids collision with the obstacle; ( via a vehicle control device 11 that causes the work vehicle 10 to travel automatically on the basis of a travel route R (corresponding to the "movement route") generated in advance (see [0039] and [0042]), the vehicle control device 11 including an avoidance setting processing unit 113 (corresponding to the "obstacle-determining means" and the "avoidance-start-and-end-point-calculating means") that, when the detection processing device 12 detects an obstacle present on the travel route R, sets, on the basis of the distance to the obstacle, an avoidance start position Ps and an avoidance end position Pe (corresponding to the "start point and end point of an avoidance route") that are the start position and the end position of an avoidance route Rse along which the work vehicle 10 is to travel while avoiding the obstacle (see [0049]-[0052] and Fig. 6A-6B).
However, Hiramatsu does not explicitly teach, calculate, based on a distance from the obstacle, a turn path on which it is possible to turn without colliding with the obstacle; and complement, based on a Dubins path, a path between the start point and the turn path and a path between the turn path and the end point to calculate the avoidance path.
In an analogous Art, park teaches, Advanced driving assistance system (ADAS) of a vehicle , wherein, calculate, based on a distance from the obstacle, a turn path on which it is possible to turn without colliding with the obstacle; (Park: via ADAS 100 calculating turning path around a moving obstacle, [0021], [0060-0067], [0071], Abstract, Ref. Claim 13, Figs. 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hiramatsu and park before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Hiramatsu to include the teachings (ADAS controller ) of Park and configure with the system of Hiramatsu in order to guide the vehicle along a curve path around the mobile obstacle. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to avoid colliding with the mobile obstacle (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safety of the vehicle (collision avoidance)).
However, Hiramatsu in view of Park does not explicitly teach, complement, based on a Dubins path, a path between the start point and the turn path and a path between the turn path and the end point to calculate the avoidance path.
In an analogous art, Kono et al. ( Kono) teaches, route setting device, being equipped with A* algorithm , wherein, complement, based on a Dubins path, a path between the start point and the turn path and a path between the turn path and the end point to calculate the avoidance path ( via CPU using A* algorithm and “the CPU 14 generates a Dubins path from the starting point SP to the goal point GP on a virtual plane (vertical plane) where the path length of the two-dimensional path R1 generated in step S2 is the horizontal axis and the vertical axis is the vertical axis, and this Dubins path is designated as the three-dimensional path R2 (Figure 4). This generates a three-dimensional extended Dubins path.”, [0022], Also see Abstract, [0023-0026], Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hiramatsu and Park and Kono before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Hiramatsu to include the teachings (CPU with A* algorithm ) of Kono and configure with the system of Hiramatsu in order to generate three dimensional Dubins path from starting point to the goal point while avoiding the mobile obstacle on the travel path. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, performing pathfinding using the three-dimensional path R2 of the Dubins path as a heuristic function, reducing the computational cost compared to simply performing pathfinding.( i.e., cost saving).
As Per Claim 5, Hiramatsu et al. ( Hiramatsu) teaches, a control method by a computer, (via an automated driving system1,[0012] [0008]Fig.1 ( via control device 11,1 2, [0007],[0008], [0034]); the control method comprising:
detecting positions and shapes of objects existing around while a mobile body is moving on a reference path; determining that an object that has a risk of collision with the mobile body among the objects is an obstacle; (via an obstacle sensor 18 that detects obstacles that are located in front of, in beside, and behind a work vehicle 10 (corresponding to the "moving body"), and a detection processing device 12 that identifies the positions and sizes of said obstacles (corresponding to the "positions and shapes of objects") (the obstacle sensor 18 and the detection processing device 12 correspond to the "object-sensing means") (see paragraphs [0029]-[0032], [0035] -0036], , and [0038]); calculating, based on a distance from the obstacle, a start point and an end point of an avoidance path that avoids collision with the obstacle; ( via a vehicle control device 11 that causes the work vehicle 10 to travel automatically on the basis of a travel route R (corresponding to the "movement route") generated in advance (see [0039] and [0042]), the vehicle control device 11 including an avoidance setting processing unit 113 (corresponding to the "obstacle-determining means" and the "avoidance-start-and-end-point-calculating means") that, when the detection processing device 12 detects an obstacle present on the travel route R, sets, on the basis of the distance to the obstacle, an avoidance start position Ps and an avoidance end position Pe (corresponding to the "start point and end point of an avoidance route") that are the start position and the end position of an avoidance route Rse along which the work vehicle 10 is to travel while avoiding the obstacle (see [0049]-[0052] and Fig. 6A-6B).
However,, Hiramatsu does not explicitly teach, calculating, based on a distance from the obstacle, a turn path on which it is possible to turn without colliding with the obstacle; and complementing, based on a Dubins path, a path between the start point and the turn path and a path between the turn path and the end point to calculate the avoidance path.
In an analogous Art, Park teaches, Advanced driving assistance system (ADAS) of a vehicle , wherein, calculating, based on a distance from the obstacle, a turn path on which it is possible to turn without colliding with the obstacle; (Park: via ADAS 100 calculating turning path around a moving obstacle, [0021], [0060-0067], [0071], Abstract, Ref. Claim 13, Figs. 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hiramatsu and park before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Hiramatsu to include the teachings (ADAS controller) of Park and configure with the system of Hiramatsu in order to guide the vehicle along a curve path around the mobile obstacle. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to avoid colliding with the mobile obstacle (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safety of the vehicle (collision avoidance)).
However, Hiramatsu in view of Park does not explicitly teach, complementing, based on a Dubins path, a path between the start point and the turn path and a path between the turn path and the end point to calculate the avoidance path.
In an analogous art, Kono et al. ( Kono) teaches, route setting device, being equipped with A* algorithm , wherein, complementing, based on a Dubins path, a path between the start point and the turn path and a path between the turn path and the end point to calculate the avoidance path ( via CPU using A* algorithm and “the CPU 14 generates a Dubins path from the starting point SP to the goal point GP on a virtual plane (vertical plane) where the path length of the two-dimensional path R1 generated in step S2 is the horizontal axis and the vertical axis is the vertical axis, and this Dubins path is designated as the three-dimensional path R2 (Figure 4). This generates a three-dimensional extended Dubins path.”, [0022], Also see Abstract, [0023-0026], Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hiramatsu and Park and Kono before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Hiramatsu to include the teachings (CPU with A* algorithm ) of Kono and configure with the system of Hiramatsu in order to generate three dimensional Dubins path from starting point to the goal point while avoiding the mobile obstacle on the travel path. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, performing pathfinding using the three-dimensional path R2 of the Dubins path as a heuristic function, reducing the computational cost compared to simply performing pathfinding.( i.e., cost saving).
As Per Claim 9, Hiramatsu et al. (Hiramatsu) teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium recording a program including an instruction (an automated driving system1,[0012] [0008]Fig.1) , via control device 11,12, [0007],[0008], [0034], memory 19); for causing a computer to: detect positions and shapes of objects existing around while a mobile body is moving on a reference path; determine, as an obstacle, an object that has a risk of collision with the mobile body among the objects;(via an obstacle sensor 18 that detects obstacles that are located in front of, in beside, and behind a work vehicle 10 (corresponding to the "moving body"), and a detection processing device 12 that identifies the positions and sizes of said obstacles (corresponding to the "positions and shapes of objects") (the obstacle sensor 18 and the detection processing device 12 correspond to the "object-sensing means") (see paragraphs [0029]-[0032], [0035] -0036], , and [0038]); calculate, based on a distance from the obstacle, a start point and an end point of an avoidance path that avoids collision with the obstacle;( via a vehicle control device 11 that causes the work vehicle 10 to travel automatically on the basis of a travel route R (corresponding to the "movement route") generated in advance (see [0039] and [0042]), the vehicle control device 11 including an avoidance setting processing unit 113 (corresponding to the "obstacle-determining means" and the "avoidance-start-and-end-point-calculating means") that, when the detection processing device 12 detects an obstacle present on the travel route R, sets, on the basis of the distance to the obstacle, an avoidance start position Ps and an avoidance end position Pe (corresponding to the "start point and end point of an avoidance route") that are the start position and the end position of an avoidance route Rse along which the work vehicle 10 is to travel while avoiding the obstacle (see [0049]-[0052] and Fig. 6A-6B).
However, Hiramatsu does not explicitly teach, calculate, based on a distance from the obstacle, a turn path on which it is possible to turn without colliding with the obstacle; and complement, based on a Dubins path, a path between the start point and the turn path and a path between the turn path and the end point to calculate the avoidance path.
In an analogous Art, park teaches, Advanced driving assistance system (ADAS) of a vehicle , wherein, calculate, based on a distance from the obstacle, a turn path on which it is possible to turn without colliding with the obstacle; (Park: via ADAS 100 calculating turning path around a moving obstacle, [0021], [0060-0067], [0071], Abstract, Ref. Claim 13, Figs. 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hiramatsu and park before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Hiramatsu to include the teachings (ADAS controller ) of Park and configure with the system of Hiramatsu in order to guide the vehicle along a curve path around the mobile obstacle . Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to avoid colliding with the mobile obstacle (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safety of the vehicle (collision avoidance).
However, Hiramatsu in view of Park does not explicitly teach, complement, based on a Dubins path, a path between the start point and the turn path and a path between the turn path and the end point to calculate the avoidance path.
In an analogous art, Kono et al. ( Kono) teaches, route setting device, being equipped with A* algorithm ,wherein, complement, based on a Dubins path, a path between the start point and the turn path and a path between the turn path and the end point to calculate the avoidance path ( via CPU using A* algorithm and “the CPU 14 generates a Dubins path from the starting point SP to the goal point GP on a virtual plane (vertical plane) where the path length of the two-dimensional path R1 generated in step S2 is the horizontal axis and the vertical axis is the vertical axis, and this Dubins path is designated as the three-dimensional path R2 (Figure 4). This generates a three-dimensional extended Dubins path.”, [0022], Also see Abstract, [0023-0026], Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hiramatsu and Park and Kono before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Hiramatsu to include the teachings (CPU with A* algorithm ) of Kono and configure with the system of Hiramatsu in order to generate three dimensional Dubins path from starting point to the goal point while avoiding the mobile obstacle on the travel path. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, performing pathfinding using the three-dimensional path R2 of the Dubins path as a heuristic function, reducing the computational cost compared to simply performing pathfinding.( i.e., cost saving).
7. Claims 2-4,6-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu et al. ( WO-2022-130945 A1) in view of Park (USP 2021/0197807) in view of Kono et al. ( JP-2021-060324) in view of Zhang eta l. (CN-114779210).
As per Claim 2, Hiramatsu as modified by Park and Kono teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Hiramatsu in view of Park and Kono teaches, wherein the one or more processors further: calculates the start point and the end point based on intersections between the first pseudo enlarged view and the reference path. (Park: via ADAS 100 calculating turning path around a moving obstacle, [0021], [0060-0067], [0071], Abstract, Ref. Claim 13, Figs. 1-6).
However, Hiramatsu in view of Park and Kono does not explicitly teach, calculates a convex hull of the obstacle, generates a first pseudo enlarged view separated by an optional distance around the convex hull,
In an analogous art, Zhang et al. ( Zhang) teaches, a method and device for generating a surrounding box based on an obstacle of an unmanned vehicle, device being equipped with convex hull determining module, wherein, calculates a convex hull of the obstacle, generates a first pseudo enlarged view separated by an optional distance around the convex hull, ( via “convex hull determining module, for based on the obstacle cloud data, determining the target convex point cloud corresponding to the obstacle, wherein the target convex hull composed of the target convex point cloud surrounds the obstacle point cloud, the target convex point cloud comprises a plurality of convex points”, page 3, 5th para, also see Page 2, 10th-11th para; Page 12, 4th, and 5th para, claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hiramatsu and Park, Kono and Zhang before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Hiramatsu to include the teachings (convex hull determining module) of Zhang and configure with the system of Hiramatsu in order to generating a surrounding box around the obstacle and guide the vehicle along a curve path around the surrounded box around mobile obstacle. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to avoid colliding with the mobile obstacle (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safety of the vehicle (collision avoidance)).
As per Claim 3, Hiramatsu as modified by Park and Kono and Zhang teaches the limitation of Claim 2. However, Hiramatsu in view of Park and Kono and Zhang teaches, wherein the one or more processors further: calculates the turn path along an enlarged view of the convex hull.( Zhang : via “convex hull determining module, for based on the obstacle cloud data, determining the target convex point cloud corresponding to the obstacle, wherein the target convex hull composed of the target convex point cloud surrounds the obstacle point cloud, the target convex point cloud comprises a plurality of convex points”, page 3, 5th para, also see Page 2, 10th-11th para; Page 12, 4th, and 5th para, claim 8). (See claim 2 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 4, Hiramatsu as modified by Park and Kono and Zhang teaches the limitation of Claim 2. However, Hiramatsu in view of Park and Kono and Zhang teaches, wherein the one or more processors further: calculates the convex hull by regarding a plurality of adjacent obstacles as one obstacle. (Zhang : via “convex hull determining module, for based on the obstacle cloud data, determining the target convex point cloud corresponding to the obstacle, wherein the target convex hull composed of the target convex point cloud surrounds the obstacle point cloud, the target convex point cloud comprises a plurality of convex points”, page 3, 5th para, also see Page 2, 10th-11th para; Page 12, 4th, and 5th para, claim 8). (See claim 2 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
However, Hiramatsu in view of Park and Kono and Zhang does not explicitly teach, wherein regarding a plurality of adjacent obstacles as one obstacle.
However, regarding a plurality of adjacent obstacles as one obstacle, would be an obvious matter of design choice, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
As per Claim 6, Hiramatsu as modified by Park and Kono teaches the limitation of Claim 5. However, Hiramatsu in view of Park and Kono teaches, calculating the start point and the end point based on intersections between the first pseudo enlarged view and the reference path. (Park: via ADAS 100 calculating turning path around a moving obstacle, [0021], [0060-0067], [0071], Abstract, Ref. Claim 13, Figs. 1-6).
However, Hiramatsu in view of Park and Kono does not explicitly teach, calculating a convex hull of the obstacle; and generating a first pseudo enlarged view separated by an optional distance around the convex hull.
In an analogous art, Zhang et al. ( Zhang) teaches, a method and device for generating a surrounding box based on an obstacle of an unmanned vehicle, device being equipped with convex hull determining module, wherein, calculates a convex hull of the obstacle, generates a first pseudo enlarged view separated by an optional distance around the convex hull, ( via “convex hull determining module, for based on the obstacle cloud data, determining the target convex point cloud corresponding to the obstacle, wherein the target convex hull composed of the target convex point cloud surrounds the obstacle point cloud, the target convex point cloud comprises a plurality of convex points”, page 3, 5th para, also see Page 2, 10th-11th para; Page 12, 4th, and 5th para, claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hiramatsu and Park, Kono and Zhang before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Hiramatsu to include the teachings (convex hull determining module) of Zhang and configure with the system of Hiramatsu in order to generating a surrounding box around the obstacle and guide the vehicle along a curve path around the surrounded box around mobile obstacle. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to avoid colliding with the mobile obstacle (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safety of the vehicle (collision avoidance)).
As per Claim 7, Hiramatsu as modified by Park and Kono and Zhang teaches the limitation of Claim 6. However, Hiramatsu in view of Park and Kono and Zhang teaches, wherein the turn path is calculated along a second pseudo enlarged view smaller than the first pseudo enlarged view and separated by an optional distance around the convex hull (Zhang : via “convex hull determining module, for based on the obstacle cloud data, determining the target convex point cloud corresponding to the obstacle, wherein the target convex hull composed of the target convex point cloud surrounds the obstacle point cloud, the target convex point cloud comprises a plurality of convex points”, page 3, 5th para, also see Page 2, 10th-11th para; Page 12, 4th, and 5th para, claim 8). (See claim 6 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 8, Hiramatsu as modified by Park and Kono and Zhang teaches the limitation of Claim 6. However, Hiramatsu in view of Park and Kono and Zhang teaches, wherein the convex hull is calculated by regarding a plurality of adjacent obstacles as one obstacle (Zhang : via “convex hull determining module, for based on the obstacle cloud data, determining the target convex point cloud corresponding to the obstacle, wherein the target convex hull composed of the target convex point cloud surrounds the obstacle point cloud, the target convex point cloud comprises a plurality of convex points”, page 3, 5th para, also see Page 2, 10th-11th para; Page 12, 4th, and 5th para, claim 8). (See claim 6 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
However, Hiramatsu in view of Park and Kono and Zhang does not explicitly teach, wherein regarding a plurality of adjacent obstacles as one obstacle
However, regarding a plurality of adjacent obstacles as one obstacle, would be an obvious matter of design choice, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
As per Claim 10, Hiramatsu as modified by Park and Kono teaches the limitation of Claim 9. However, Hiramatsu in view of Park and Kono teaches, calculate the start point and the end point based on intersections between the first pseudo enlarged view and the reference path (Park: via ADAS 100 calculating turning path around a moving obstacle, [0021], [0060-0067], [0071], Abstract, Ref. Claim 13, Figs. 1-6).
However, Hiramatsu in view of Park and Kono does not explicitly teach, calculate a convex hull of the obstacle; and generate a first pseudo enlarged view separated by an optional distance around the convex hull,
In an analogous art, Zhang et al. ( Zhang) teaches, a method and device for generating a surrounding box based on an obstacle of an unmanned vehicle, device being equipped with convex hull determining module, wherein, calculates a convex hull of the obstacle, generates a first pseudo enlarged view separated by an optional distance around the convex hull, ( via “convex hull determining module, for based on the obstacle cloud data, determining the target convex point cloud corresponding to the obstacle, wherein the target convex hull composed of the target convex point cloud surrounds the obstacle point cloud, the target convex point cloud comprises a plurality of convex points”, page 3, 5th para, also see Page 2, 10th-11th para; Page 12, 4th, and 5th para, claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hiramatsu and Park, Kono and Zhang before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Hiramatsu to include the teachings (convex hull determining module) of Zhang and configure with the system of Hiramatsu in order to generating a surrounding box around the obstacle and guide the vehicle along a curve path around the surrounded box around mobile obstacle. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to avoid colliding with the mobile obstacle (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safety of the vehicle (collision avoidance)).
As per Claim 11, Hiramatsu as modified by Park and Kono and Zhang teaches the limitation of Claim 10. However, Hiramatsu in view of Park and Kono and Zhang teaches, causing the computer to calculate the turn path along a second pseudo enlarged view smaller than the first pseudo enlarged view and separated by an optional distance around the convex hull ( Zhang : via “convex hull determining module, for based on the obstacle cloud data, determining the target convex point cloud corresponding to the obstacle, wherein the target convex hull composed of the target convex point cloud surrounds the obstacle point cloud, the target convex point cloud comprises a plurality of convex points”, page 3, 5th para, also see Page 2, 10th-11th para; Page 12, 4th, and 5th para, claim 8). (See claim 10 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 12, Hiramatsu as modified by Park and Kono and Zhang teaches the limitation of Claim 10. However, Hiramatsu in view of Park and Kono and Zhang teaches, causing the computer to calculate the convex hull by regarding a plurality of adjacent obstacles as one obstacle (Zhang : via “convex hull determining module, for based on the obstacle cloud data, determining the target convex point cloud corresponding to the obstacle, wherein the target convex hull composed of the target convex point cloud surrounds the obstacle point cloud, the target convex point cloud comprises a plurality of convex points”, page 3, 5th para, also see Page 2, 10th-11th para; Page 12, 4th, and 5th para, claim 8). (See claim 10 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
However, Hiramatsu in view of Park and Kono and Zhang does not explicitly teach, wherein regarding a plurality of adjacent obstacles as one obstacle
However, regarding a plurality of adjacent obstacles as one obstacle, would be an obvious matter of design choice, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights