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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Theel (FR 3079065 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Theel discloses a method for planning a vehicle trajectory (abstract, “An assistance device (DA) assists the driving of a first vehicle (V1) with automated driving… new first trajectory”) wherein the method comprises:
obtaining, by an intelligent driving domain controller of a first vehicle (abstract, “An assistance device (DA).. first vehicle... This device (DA) comprises control means (MCT) ”), a first trajectory of the first vehicle (abstract, “determining first trajectory”), wherein the first vehicle is an intelligent vehicle (abstract, “abstract, “An assistance device (DA).. first vehicle... This device (DA) comprises control means (MCT) ”);
performing one of the following operations:
determining that a current moment is within a preset time period for communicating with at least one second vehicle;
or establishing mutual trust between the first vehicle and the at least one second vehicle (page 5, lines 7-11, “… transmitted by waves to the first vehicle V1 by other vehicles V2k…means of communication by means of MCN waves… these communications by waves can be done at short range, using a wireless communication standard such as Car2X”);
obtaining, by the intelligent driving domain controller, a second trajectory of the at least one second vehicle based on a first communication technology (abstract, “determining a second current trajectory of the second vehicle (V2k)”); and
determining, by the intelligent driving domain controller, trajectory planning of the first vehicle based on the first trajectory and the second trajectory of the at least one second vehicle (abstract, “when this second trajectory is abnormal with respect to the first trajectory or a reference trajectory, requesting the control means (TCM) to determine a new first trajectory similar to this second trajectory and new speed and acceleration”).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theel (FR 3079065 A1) in view of SUN (US 20190072973 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Theel does not explicitly disclose but, SUN teaches wherein the obtaining, by the intelligent driving domain controller, a first trajectory of the first vehicle comprises: determining, by the intelligent driving domain controller, a current driving mode of the first vehicle, wherein the current driving mode comprises at least one of an autonomous driving mode a manual driving mode; and
obtaining, by the intelligent driving domain controller, the first trajectory of the first vehicle based on the current driving mode of the first vehicle (¶0033).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in with the different modes taught in SUN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in autonomous vehicle performance control operations so that the vehicle may be safely driven by changing the driving path to avoid the obstacles.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theel (FR 3079065 A1) in view of SUN (US 20190072973 A1) and further in view of Hokai (US 20200133277 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Theel does not explicitly disclose but, Hokai teaches wherein the obtaining, by the intelligent driving domain controller, the first trajectory of the first vehicle based on the current driving mode of the first vehicle comprises: when the intelligent driving domain controller determines that the current driving mode of the first vehicle is the manual driving mode, predicting, by the intelligent driving domain controller, a manual driving trajectory of the first vehicle, and using the predicted manual driving trajectory as the first trajectory (claim 2).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in with the manual driving mode taught in Hokai with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in autonomous vehicle performance control operations so that the vehicle may be safely driven by changing the driving path to avoid the obstacles.
Regarding claim 4, SUN further teaches wherein the predicting, by the intelligent driving domain controller, a manual driving trajectory of the first vehicle comprises: obtaining, by the intelligent driving domain controller (¶0021, ¶0035), a first parameter set, wherein the first parameter set comprises a location of the first vehicle (¶0026), driving data of a surrounding obstacle of the first vehicle relative to the first vehicle, and a driving status of the first vehicle, and the driving status of the first vehicle indicates a driving habit of a user currently driving the first vehicle (¶0041, ¶0049); obtaining, by the intelligent driving domain controller, a trajectory prediction model corresponding to the first vehicle, wherein the trajectory prediction model is trained based on historical data of the driving habit of the user currently driving the first vehicle (¶0041, FIG. 1 prediction module); predicting, by the intelligent driving domain controller, a trajectory point of the first vehicle based on the first parameter set and the trajectory prediction model (¶0041).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in with the different modes taught in SUN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in autonomous vehicle performance control operations so that the vehicle may be safely driven by changing the driving path to avoid the obstacles.
Hokai further teaches determining, by the intelligent driving domain controller, the manual driving trajectory of the first vehicle based on the trajectory point of the first vehicle (claim 2).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in with the manual driving mode taught in Hokai with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in autonomous vehicle performance control operations so that the vehicle may be safely driven by changing the driving path to avoid the obstacles.
Regarding claim 5, SUN further teaches wherein the location of the first vehicle comprises a longitude and a latitude that identify the location of the first vehicle (¶0025); the surrounding obstacle of the first vehicle comprises one or more obstacles, and driving data of the surrounding obstacle comprises a relative velocity and a relative distance of the surrounding obstacle relative to the first vehicle (¶0039); and the driving status of the first vehicle comprises at least one of following of the first vehicle: an attribute of a current lane on a road on which the first vehicle is located, a road radius, a velocity, an acceleration, an opening degree of an accelerator pedal, an opening degree of a brake pedal, a front right brake wheel cylinder, a front left brake wheel cylinder, a rear right brake wheel cylinder, a rear left brake wheel cylinder, a steering wheel angle, a steering wheel angle velocity, a steering wheel torque, a gear, or a turn light signal (FIG. 1 and ¶0051, ¶0026).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in with the different modes taught in SUN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in autonomous vehicle performance control operations so that the vehicle may be safely driven by changing the driving path to avoid the obstacles.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theel (FR 3079065 A1) in view of SUN (US 20190072973 A1), Hokai (US 20200133277 A1) and further in view of Philips (US 20210114617 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Theel does not explicitly disclose but, Philips teaches wherein the trajectory point of the first vehicle comprises a predicted longitude and a predicted latitude that are comprised in a predicted driving trajectory of the first vehicle (¶0103).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in with the change in latitude and longitude taught in Philips with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in vehicles communication regarding measure of precise degree real-time positions.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theel (FR 3079065 A1) in view of SUN (US 20190072973 A1), Hokai (US 20200133277 A1), Philips (US 20210114617 A1), and further in view of Green (US 20210070286 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Theel does not explicitly disclose but, Green teaches wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the intelligent driving domain controller, the first parameter set and the trajectory point of the first vehicle to a cloud server, correcting the trajectory prediction model receiving, by the intelligent driving domain controller, a corrected trajectory prediction model sent by the cloud server; and predicting, by the intelligent driving domain controller, a trajectory point of the first vehicle by using the corrected trajectory prediction model and a second parameter set, wherein the second parameter set is data that is collected at a current moment and that comprises a location of the first vehicle, driving data of a surrounding obstacle of the first vehicle relative to the first vehicle, and a driving status of the first vehicle (¶0027).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in with the change in cloud server taught in Green with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in vehicles communication regarding measure of precise degree real-time positions.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theel (FR 3079065 A1) in view of Murata (US 20160370189 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Theel does not explicitly disclose but, Murata teaches wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the intelligent driving domain controller, the first trajectory to the at least one second vehicle (¶0109).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in with sending the trajectory to another vehicle taught in Murata with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted shortening a time period required for acquiring the trajectory information by enabling acquisition of the GPS trajectory information using exchange of high-speed communication.
Regarding claim 9, Theel does not explicitly disclose but, Murata teaches wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the intelligent driving domain controller, that the at least one second vehicle is in a specified range, wherein the specified range is a circular area centered on the first vehicle, and a radius of the circular area is a specified value; and determining, by the intelligent driving domain controller, that the first vehicle and the at least one second vehicle have passed security authentication (FIG. 8, ¶0100).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in with sending the trajectory to another vehicle taught in Murata with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted shortening a time period required for acquiring the trajectory information by enabling acquisition of the GPS trajectory information using exchange of high-speed communication.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theel (FR 3079065 A1) in view of Lockwood (US 10268191).
Regarding claim 10, Theel does not explicitly disclose but, Lockwood teaches wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the intelligent driving domain controller, a driving trajectory of the first vehicle according to at least one of the following rules. rule 1: no traffic rule is violated; rule 2: a distance from an obstacle needs to be greater than a preset value; or rule 3: not at a same location as an obstacle at the same moment (col. 10, lines 54-67).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autonomous vehicle disclosed in with sending the trajectory to another vehicle taught in Lockwood with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted shortening a time period required for acquiring the trajectory information by enabling acquisition of the GPS trajectory information using exchange of high-speed communication.
Regarding claims 11-20, claims 11-20 are rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claims 1-10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Olson (US 20170031361 A1) discloses A system includes a computer programmed to identify, from a first vehicle, one or more second vehicles within a specified distance to the first vehicle. The computer is further programmed to receive data about operations of each of the second vehicles, including trajectory data. Based on the data, the computer is programmed to identify, for each of the second vehicles, a distribution of probabilities of each of a set of potential planned trajectories. The computer is further programmed to determine a planned trajectory for the first vehicle, based on the respective distributions of probabilities of each of the set of potential planned trajectories for each of the second vehicles. The computer is further programmed to provide an instruction to at least one controller associated with the first vehicle based on the determined planned trajectory (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at 571-272-4896. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights