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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno (US 2022/0355820).
As per claim 1, Bruno teaches a device for controlling a vehicle, the device comprising:
one or more processors (computer 5); and
a memory storing at least one instruction that is configured (see at least para. 46 for memory), when executed by the one or more processors communicating with the memory, to cause the device to:
determine, based on an external object detected by one or more sensors of the vehicle, movement of the external object (detecting system 9; see at least para. 68 for acquiring data related to longitudinal and lateral speeds of obstacle 15 relative to the motor vehicle 1);
determine, based on the movement of the external object, based on vehicle driving information of the vehicle, and based on a safety boundary between the vehicle and the external object, a driving path of the vehicle (see at least para. 79 for determining point of impact which corresponds to an extreme position of a safety zone around obstacle 15 and is based on relative speed of the obstacle and measurement error of the sensors, wherein the relative speed is vehicle driving information; see at least para. 93-101 for determining the minimum safety distance or avoidance radius based on time before collision which takes into account the half-width of the motor vehicle 1; see at least para. 108 for generating avoidance path T1 to avoid point of impact); and
Bruno is not explicit regarding control, based on the driving path, an autonomous driving operation of the vehicle.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the generated avoidance path is intended to be implemented in order to avoid the detected obstacle. Additionally, the background section of Bruno recites controlling the vehicle to follow an avoidance path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Bruno to control an autonomous driving operation of the vehicle based on the generated avoidance path because implementing the avoidance path would avoid collision with the detected obstacle that the avoidance path was generated in response to.
Claim 11 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 above for being directed towards similar subject matter.
As per claim 20, Bruno teaches a vehicle (motor vehicle 1) comprising:
one or more sensors (detecting system 9);
one or more processors (computer 5); and
a memory storing at least one instruction that is configured (see at least para. 46 for memory), when executed by the one or more processors communicating with the memory, to cause the vehicle to:
determine an autonomous driving path of the vehicle (see at least para. 61 for initial path T0 of the motor vehicle 1 before obstacle 15 was detected);
determine, based on an external object detected by the one or more sensors, movement of the external object (see at least para. 68 for acquiring data related to longitudinal and lateral speeds of obstacle 15 relative to the motor vehicle 1);
determine, based on the movement of the external object and based on vehicle driving information of the vehicle, a safety boundary between the vehicle and the external object, wherein the safety boundary is determined based on at least one of: a first probability value associated with one or more sensing errors of the one or more sensors or a second probability value associated with one or more prediction errors of the autonomous driving path (see at least para. 79 for determining point of impact which corresponds to an extreme position of a safety zone around obstacle 15 and is based on relative speed of the obstacle and measurement error of the sensors; see at least para. 93-101 for determining the minimum safety distance or avoidance radius based on time before collision which takes into account the half-width of the motor vehicle 1);
adjust, based on the safety boundary, the autonomous driving path (see at least para. 108 for generating avoidance path T1 to avoid point of impact);
Bruno is not explicit regarding control, based on the adjusted autonomous driving path, an autonomous driving operation of the vehicle.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the generated avoidance path is intended to be implemented in order to avoid the detected obstacle. Additionally, the background section of Bruno recites controlling the vehicle to follow an avoidance path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Bruno to control an autonomous driving operation of the vehicle based on the generated avoidance path because implementing the avoidance path would avoid collision with the detected obstacle that the avoidance path was generated in response to.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno (US 2022/0355820) in view of Yang (US 2018/0293893).
As per claim 2, Bruno is silent regarding, but Yang teaches wherein the at least one instruction is configured, when executed by the one or more processors communicating with the memory, to further cause the device to: determine, based on first object information of the external object measured via the one or more sensors at a first time, a predicted movement value of the external object; determine a measured movement value by measuring, via the one or more sensors at a second time later than the first time, second object information of the external object; and determine, based on a difference between the predicted movement value and the measured movement value, an error covariance (see at least para. 156 for updating predicted value using the measured value and measurement covariance by correcting the error value of the covariance matrix; Yang is not explicit regarding two difference periods of time for the predicted value and measurement value, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art they are taken at different times as the predicted value cannot be corrected until after an actual measured value has been recorded).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Bruno with the features of Yang because using known state-estimation technique as such as Kalman filtering, where the difference between predicted and measured object states is used to update an error covariation matrix, provides for more accurate estimations.
Claim 12 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 2 above for being directed towards similar subject matter.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno (US 2022/0355820) in view of Fan (US 2025/0050896).
As per claim 10, Bruno further teaches wherein the at least one instruction is configured, when executed by the one or more processors communicating with the memory, to cause the device to control the autonomous driving operation of the vehicle comprises:
wherein the safety boundary is determined based on at least one of: a first probability value associated with one or more sensing errors of the one or more sensors or a second probability value associated with one or more prediction errors of the driving path (see at least para. 79 for determining point of impact which corresponds to an extreme position of a safety zone around obstacle 15 and is based on relative speed of the obstacle and measurement error of the sensors).
Bruno is silent regarding, but Fan teaches displaying, via a display device of the vehicle, an indication of the vehicle, an indication of the external object, and an indication of the safety boundary (see at least para. 95 for display of the vehicle, a preceding vehicle, and a safety boundary of the preceding vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Bruno with the features of Fan because it enhances a sense of safety for the driver/occupant by displaying the absolute limit of where the vehicle can travel before a collision is imminent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 and 13-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art is regarded to be US 2022/0161822 which teaches defining safety zones at least in part on probabilities but is silent regarding the particulars of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM 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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights