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 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.
Introduction
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. This is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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 5, 6, and 15 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 5, 6, and 15 recite “initially planned”; however, it is indefinite what is meant by this limitation and what it is intended to refer to. There are no planning steps or “plan” within the claim, so it is indefinite what this limitation is referring to. Further, initially is a relative term and the claim and specification do not provide any gauge or basis to relate to. This limitation is being interpreted as being different than an alternative.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0255027 to Kulkarni et al.
As per claim 1, Kulkarni discloses a method (Kulkarni; At least the abstract) comprising:
receiving, by one or more sensors of a perception system of a vehicle operating in an autonomous driving mode, sensor data associated with objects in an external environment of the vehicle including a road user within a lane (Kulkarni; At least paragraph(s) 12);
determining, by one or more processors, indicia of a permitted driving behavior for road users traveling within the lane (Kulkarni; At least paragraph(s) 6 and 17);
based on the sensor data, generating, by the one or more processors, a continuing lane driving behavior prediction for the road user indicating a likelihood that the road user follows the permitted driving behavior indicated by the determined indicia (Kulkarni; At least paragraph(s) 13); and
controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode based on the continuing lane driving behavior prediction (Kulkarni; At least paragraph(s) 15).
As per claim 2, Kulkarni discloses wherein determining the indicia is based on map information related to a roadway including the lane (Kulkarni; At least paragraph(s) 6).
As per claim 3, Kulkarni discloses wherein determining the indicia is based on a stored roadgraph (Kulkarni; At least paragraph(s) 6).
As per claim 4, Kulkarni discloses wherein determining the indicia is based on the sensor data or other sensor data received from the perception system (Kulkarni; At least paragraph(s) 17 and 18).
As per claim 5, Kulkarni discloses wherein controlling the vehicle comprises accelerating more quickly than initially planned (Kulkarni; At least paragraph(s) 49).
As per claim 6, Kulkarni discloses wherein accelerating more quickly than initially planned comprises at least one of accelerating from a stop more quickly than initially planned or selecting a driving speed that is higher than an initially planned driving speed (Kulkarni; At least paragraph(s) 49).
As per claim 7, Kulkarni discloses wherein controlling the vehicle comprises waiting until the road user performs a movement before performing a planned maneuver (Kulkarni; At least paragraph(s) 50).
As per claim 10, Kulkarni discloses wherein the permitted driving behavior includes performing a tum through an intersection (Kulkarni; At least paragraph(s) 8 and the figures).
As per claim 11, Kulkarni discloses wherein the indicia comprises at least one of text or symbols presented on a surface of a roadway including the lane or text or symbols on at least one traffic sign (Kulkarni; At least paragraph(s) 17 and 18).
As per claim 12, Kulkarni discloses wherein: the indicia is based on a configuration of a roadway including the lane, and the configuration of the roadway is based on at least one of presence of lane dividers or designated turning lanes (Kulkarni; At least paragraph(s) 13).
As per claims 13-16 & 18 and 19 & 20, Kulkarni discloses the system and vehicle (Kulkarni; At least paragraph(s) 23) for carrying out the method of claims 1-7 and 10-12. Therefore, claims 13-16 & 18 and 19 & 20 are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claims 1-7 and 10-12.
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) 8, 9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0272018 to Casas et al.
As per claim 8, Kulkarni discloses wherein generating the continuing lane driving behavior prediction comprises [employing a machine learning model] to evaluate at least the received sensor data and the indicia. (Kulkarni; At least paragraph(s) 8, 12, and 14).
Kulkarni does not explicitly disclose that the evaluation is performed by employing a machine learning model. However, the above feature(s) are taught by Casas (Casas; At least paragraph(s) 78). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Casas into the invention of Kulkarni with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Casas teaches in at least paragraph(s) 78 that algorithms and machine-learns models can be used interchangeably. Further, machine learn models are well-known in the art as an alternative to provide accurate results while being able to adapt to ever-changing input, as is the case with vehicle control.
As per claim 9, Kulkarni discloses wherein generating the continuing lane driving behavior prediction further comprises [employing the machine learning model] to evaluate at least one agent feature associated with the road user (Kulkarni; At least paragraph(s) 19).
Kulkarni does not explicitly disclose that the evaluation is performed by employing a machine learning model. However, the above feature(s) are taught by Casas (Casas; At least paragraph(s) 78). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Casas into the invention of Kulkarni with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Casas teaches in at least paragraph(s) 78 that algorithms and machine-learns models can be used interchangeably. Further, machine learn models are well-known in the art as an alternative to provide accurate results while being able to adapt to ever-changing input, as is the case with vehicle control.
As per claim 17, Kulkarni discloses the system (Kulkarni; At least paragraph(s) 23) for carrying out the method of claims 8 and 9. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claims 8 and 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights