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 .
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
This application is claims priority to the provisional application 63753942 with a filling date of
02/05/2025 and has been acknowledged.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "an obstacle" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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 1-3, 6-9 & 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bybee (US 20210046943 A1) in view of Gier (US 20200278681 A1) in view of Akella (US 11513519 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bybee teaches An autonomous vehicle comprising (see at least [¶010-011]):
a steering control system; a speed control system; one or more sensors (see at least [¶010-011]);
one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more sensors, the steering control system, and the speed control system (see at least [¶010-011]);
and one or more computer-readable media having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the one or more processors (see at least [¶010-011 & 058-59]):
at a first time, receive observed sensor data from a sensor of the one or more sensors showing that a subset of cells of a plurality of cells within an occlusion probability map has been observed, wherein the occlusion probability map represents a sensor field of view within an operating environment (Receiving observed sensor data from a sensor that shows a subset of cells of the plurality of cells that are within an occlusion probability map have been observed, with the occlusion probability map representing the sensor field of view of the environment. This collection of sensor data will always occur at a first/initial time. see at least [¶05-06, 024, 032 & 031]);
Bybee does not explicitly teach at a second time, receive occluded sensor data from the sensor of the one or more sensors showing at least the subset of cells of the plurality of cells has not been observed.
However, Gier does teach at a second time, receive occluded sensor data from the sensor of the one or more sensors showing at least the subset of cells of the plurality of cells has not been observed (Receiving, at a second time, occluded sensor data that shows that some of the cells have not been observed. see at least [¶019 & 052-055]).
Gier would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of occlusion regions and autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Bybee to use the technique of at a second time, receive occluded sensor data from the sensor of the one or more sensors showing at least the subset of cells of the plurality of cells has not been observed as taught by Gier. Doing so would lead to improved updating of a probability of an occluded area (see at least [¶019]).
Bybee and Gier do not explicitly teach instruct the steering control system and the speed control system to drive the autonomous vehicle along a path through an area in an environment associated with the occluded sensor data when an elapsed time between the first time and the second time is below a time threshold.
However, Akella does teach and instruct the steering control system and the speed control system to drive the autonomous vehicle along a path through an area in an environment associated with the occluded sensor data when an elapsed time between the first time and the second time is below a time threshold (Instructing the autonomous vehicle to travel along a path/trajectory in an environment associated with occluded sensor data when a difference between a first and second time is below a threshold time. see at least [Column 7-8, Lines 43-48, Column 17-18, Lines 31-7 & Column 23, Lines 7-38]).
Akella would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of occlusion regions and autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Bybee and Gier to use the technique of instructing the steering control system and the speed control system to drive the autonomous vehicle along a path through an area in an environment associated with the occluded sensor data when an elapsed time between the first time and the second time is below a time threshold as taught by Akella. Doing so would lead to improved control of an autonomous vehicle with updated occluded values for regions (see at least [Column 23, Lines 7-38]).
Regarding Claim 2, Bybee, Gier and Akella teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Gier teaches wherein the observed sensor data shows that the subset of cells of the plurality of cells within the occlusion probability map is nonoccluded (The observed sensor data shows that certain cells from the plurality of cells in the occlusion probability map are non-occluded. see at least [¶025 & 029]).
Gier would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of occlusion regions and autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Bybee and Akella to use the technique of having the observed sensor data shows that the subset of cells of the plurality of cells within the occlusion probability map is nonoccluded as taught by Gier. Doing so would lead to improved controlling of an autonomous vehicle based on the probability of an occluded area (see at least [¶034]).
Regarding Claim 3, Bybee, Gier and Akella teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Bybee teaches set an occlusion probability of the subset of cells within the plurality of cells of the occlusion probability map to a value associated with an observed state based on the observed sensor data (Setting an occlusion probability of the subset of cells from a plurality of cells in the occlusion probability map to a value associated with the observed state based on the observed/initial sensor data. see at least [¶048-052]);
Furthermore, Akella teaches and after occluded sensor data is received, set the occlusion probability of the subset of cells to a value associated with an Unknown, Occluded, or Likely Occluded state when the elapsed time is equal to or greater than the time threshold (After receiving additional/occluded sensor data, setting the occlusion probability of a region/cell to an updated occlusion value once a time threshold is exceeded. It would be obvious that values could be adapted to those found in the primary reference of Bybee. see at least [Column 7-8, Lines 43-48, Column 17-18, Lines 31-7 & Column 23, Lines 7-38]).
Akella would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of occlusion regions and autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Bybee and Gier to use the technique of after occluded sensor data is received, set the occlusion probability of the subset of cells to a value associated with an Unknown, Occluded, or Likely Occluded state when the elapsed time is equal to or greater than the time threshold as taught by Akella. Doing so would lead to improved control of an autonomous vehicle with updated occluded values for regions (see at least [Column 23, Lines 7-38]).
Regarding Claim 6, Bybee, Gier and Akella teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Bybee teaches wherein one of the one or more sensors comprises a LiDAR (The sensor can be a LIDAR sensor. see at least [¶05 & 023]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 19, Bybee, Gier and Akella teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 16 as shown above, furthermore, Bybee teaches wherein one of the one or more sensors comprises a depth camera, structured light camera, or a stereo camera (The sensor can be a camera such as a stereo or structured camera sensor. see at least [¶05 & 023]).
Regarding Claim 8, Bybee, Gier and Akella teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Bybee teaches wherein an occlusion probability of the subset of cells of the plurality of cells is initialized to a value corresponding to an Unknown state, an Occluded state, or a Likely Occluded state (The occlusion probability of the subset of cell of the plurality of cells can be initialized to a value that corresponds to an Unknown state, an Occluded state, or a Likely Occluded state. see at least [¶048-052]).
Regarding Claim 9, Bybee teaches A method comprising: (see at least [¶03 & 010-011]):
at a first time, receive observed sensor data from a sensor of the one or more sensors showing that a subset of cells of a plurality of cells within an occlusion probability map has been observed, wherein the occlusion probability map represents a sensor field of view within an operating environment (Receiving observed sensor data from a sensor that shows a subset of cells of the plurality of cells that are within an occlusion probability map have been observed, with the occlusion probability map representing the sensor field of view of the environment. This collection of sensor data will always occur at a first/initial time. see at least [¶05-06, 024, 032 & 031]);
Bybee does not explicitly teach at a second time, receive occluded sensor data from the sensor of the one or more sensors showing at least the subset of cells of the plurality of cells has not been observed.
However, Gier does teach at a second time, receive occluded sensor data from the sensor of the one or more sensors showing at least the subset of cells of the plurality of cells has not been observed (Receiving, at a second time, occluded sensor data that shows that some of the cells have not been observed. see at least [¶019 & 052-055]).
Gier would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of occlusion regions and autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Bybee to use the technique of at a second time, receive occluded sensor data from the sensor of the one or more sensors showing at least the subset of cells of the plurality of cells has not been observed as taught by Gier. Doing so would lead to improved updating of a probability of an occluded area (see at least [¶019]).
Bybee and Gier do not explicitly teach instruct the steering control system and the speed control system to drive the autonomous vehicle along a path through an area in an environment associated with the occluded sensor data when an elapsed time between the first time and the second time is below a time threshold.
However, Akella does teach and instruct the steering control system and the speed control system to drive the autonomous vehicle along a path through an area in an environment associated with the occluded sensor data when an elapsed time between the first time and the second time is below a time threshold (Instructing the autonomous vehicle to travel along a path/trajectory in an environment associated with occluded sensor data when a difference between a first and second time is below a threshold time. see at least [Column 7-8, Lines 43-48, Column 17-18, Lines 31-7 & Column 23, Lines 7-38]).
Akella would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of occlusion regions and autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Bybee and Gier to use the technique of instructing the steering control system and the speed control system to drive the autonomous vehicle along a path through an area in an environment associated with the occluded sensor data when an elapsed time between the first time and the second time is below a time threshold as taught by Akella. Doing so would lead to improved control of an autonomous vehicle with updated occluded values for regions (see at least [Column 23, Lines 7-38]).
Regarding Claim 12, Bybee, Gier and Akella teach all of the limitations of claim 9 as shown above, furthermore, Bybee teaches determining whether a cell of the subset of cells is independent when the cell has not been observed (Determining that a cell is independent when a cell has not been observed. see at least [¶036-038, 040-048 & Claim 1]);
setting an occlusion probability of the cell to a previous occlusion probability when the cell is not independent; and (Setting an occlusion probability of the cell to a previous occlusion probability when the cell is not independent. see at least [¶036-038, 040-048 & Claim 1])
setting the occlusion probability using an occlusion probability update function when the cell is independent (Setting the occlusion probability using an occlusion probability update function when the cell is independent. see at least [¶036-038, 040-048 & Claim 1])
Regarding Claim 13, Bybee, Gier and Akella teach all of the limitations of claim 9 as shown above, furthermore, Bybee discloses the necessary formulas to determining that a cell is independent. However, it is silent as to the specifics of applying mathematical formula for determining the independence of a cell when a time threshold has been exceeded.
Nevertheless, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means to compute the independence of a cell as shown by Bybee (see at least [¶036-038, 040-048 & Claim 1]). Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Furthermore, Bybee teaches setting an occlusion probability of the cell to a previous occlusion probability when the cell is not independent; and (Setting an occlusion probability of the cell to a previous occlusion probability when the cell is not independent. see at least [¶036-038, 040-048 & Claim 1])
setting the occlusion probability using an occlusion probability update function when the cell is independent (Setting the occlusion probability using an occlusion probability update function when the cell is independent. see at least [¶036-038, 040-048 & Claim 1])
Regarding Claim 14, Bybee, Gier and Akella teach all of the limitations of claim 13 as shown above, furthermore, Bybee discloses the necessary formulas to for an occlusion probability update function. However, it is silent as to the specifics of applying mathematical formula for having the occlusion probability of map m of the cell at column c and row r for iteration k, sr,c represents a scan cell detection probability of the cell at column c and row r, and s1 represents the probability of false detection for the cell at column c and row r.
Nevertheless, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means to compute an occlusion probability update function as shown by Bybee (see at least [¶032-037, 040-048 & Claim 4]). Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding Claim 15, Bybee, Gier and Akella teach all of the limitations of claim 13 as shown above, furthermore, Bybee teaches wherein the occlusion probability update function comprises a sequence of Bernoulli random variables or a binary Bayes filter (The occlusion probability update function comprises a sequence of Bernoulli random variables. see at least [¶037]).
Regarding Claim 16, Bybee, Gier and Akella teach all of the limitations of claim 9 as shown above, furthermore, Bybee teaches An autonomous vehicle comprising: a vehicle platform comprising a steering control system and a speed control system; one or more sensors coupled with the vehicle platform; and a processor communicatively coupled with the one or more sensors, wherein the processor executes the method according to claim 9 (see at least [¶03-011 & 058-59]).
Regarding Claim 17, Bybee, Gier and Akella teach all of the limitations of claim 16 as shown above, furthermore, Bybee teaches wherein the vehicle platform comprises a steering mechanism in communication with the processor, and the processor communicates steering commands to the steering mechanism based on an occlusion probability of the subset of cells (“In some embodiments, the vehicle platform comprises a steering mechanism in communication with the processor, and the processor communicates steering commands to the steering mechanism based on the occlusion probability. In some embodiments, the vehicle platform comprises a braking mechanism in communication with the processor, and the processor communicates braking commands to the braking mechanism based on the occlusion probability.” see at least [¶011]).
Regarding Claim 18, Bybee, Gier and Akella teach all of the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, furthermore, Bybee teaches wherein the vehicle platform comprises a braking mechanism in communication with the processor, and the processor communicates braking commands to the braking mechanism based on an occlusion probability of the subset of cells (“In some embodiments, the vehicle platform comprises a steering mechanism in communication with the processor, and the processor communicates steering commands to the steering mechanism based on the occlusion probability. In some embodiments, the vehicle platform comprises a braking mechanism in communication with the processor, and the processor communicates braking commands to the braking mechanism based on the occlusion probability.” see at least [¶011]).
Claims 4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bybee (US 20210046943 A1) in view of Gier (US 20200278681 A1) in view of Akella (US 11513519 B1) in view of Ferguson (US 20190004532 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Bybee, Gier and Akella teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Bybee, Gier and Akella do not explicitly teach send a camera image from the camera and associated with a sensor field of view of the sensor to a remote operator; and receive an indication associated with the remote operator indicating whether an obstacle is present within the camera image.
However, Ferguson teaches send a camera image from the camera and associated with a sensor field of view of the sensor to a remote operator (Sending a camera image associated with a sensor field of view to a remote operator. see at least [¶025, 060-063 & 085-086]);
and receive an indication associated with the remote operator indicating whether an obstacle is present within the camera image (Receiving an indication from a remote operator indicating that an obstacle is present within a camera image. see at least [¶025, 060-063 & 085-086]).
Ferguson would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of assisted perception for autonomous vehicles from remote operators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Bybee, Gier and Akella to use the technique of sending a camera image from the camera and associated with a sensor field of view of the sensor to a remote operator; and receive an indication associated with the remote operator indicating whether an obstacle is present within the camera image as taught by Ferguson. Doing so would lead to improved autonomous control of a vehicle based on detected objects by a remote operator (see at least [¶090]).
Regarding Claim 10, Bybee, Gier and Akella teach all of the limitations of claim 9 as shown above, Bybee, Gier and Akella do not explicitly teach sending a camera image from the camera and associated with a sensor field of view of the sensor to a remote operator.
However, Ferguson teaches sending a camera image from the camera and associated with a sensor field of view of the sensor to a remote operator (Sending a camera image associated with a sensor field of view to a remote operator. see at least [¶025, 060-063 & 085-086]);
Ferguson would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of assisted perception for autonomous vehicles from remote operators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Bybee, Gier and Akella to use the technique of sending a camera image from the camera and associated with a sensor field of view of the sensor to a remote operator as taught by Ferguson. Doing so would lead to improved autonomous control of a vehicle based on detected objects by a remote operator (see at least [¶090]).
Regarding Claim 11, Bybee, Gier, Akella and Ferguson teach all of the limitations of claim 10 as shown above, furthermore, Ferguson teaches receiving an indication associated with the remote operator indicating whether an obstacle is present within the camera image (Receiving an indication from a remote operator indicating that an obstacle is present within a camera image. see at least [¶025, 060-063 & 085-086]).
Ferguson would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of assisted perception for autonomous vehicles from remote operators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Bybee, Gier and Akella to use the technique of receiving an indication associated with the remote operator indicating whether an obstacle is present within the camera image as taught by Ferguson. Doing so would lead to improved autonomous control of a vehicle based on detected objects by a remote operator (see at least [¶090]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bybee (US 20210046943 A1) in view of Gier (US 20200278681 A1) in view of Akella (US 11513519 B1) in view of Ferguson (US 20190004532 A1) in view of Ghafarianzadeh (US 20190250626 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Bybee, Gier, Akella and Ferguson teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Bybee, Gier, Akella and Ferguson do not explicitly teach wherein when the indication from the remote operator indicates presence of an obstacle within the sensor field of view the one or more processors sets an occlusion probability of the subset of cells to a different value (A remote indicator can indicate that an object is present at a location and the occlusion probability in a map can be updated based on the operator input. see at least [¶052, 054 & 075-076]).
Ghafarianzadeh would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of assisted perception for autonomous vehicles from remote operators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Bybee, Gier, Akella and Ferguson to use the technique of when the indication from the remote operator indicates presence of an obstacle within the sensor field of view the one or more processors sets an occlusion probability of the subset of cells to a different value as taught by Ghafarianzadeh. Doing so would lead to improved autonomous control of a vehicle based on detected objects by a remote operator (see at least [¶077]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bybee (US 20210046943 A1) in view of Englard (US 20190113927 A1) in view of Akella (US 11513519 B1).
Regarding Claim 20, Bybee teaches An autonomous vehicle comprising (see at least [¶010-011]):
a steering control system; a speed control system; one or more sensors (see at least [¶010-011]);
one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more sensors, the steering control system, and the speed control system (see at least [¶010-011]);
and one or more computer-readable media having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the one or more processors (see at least [¶010-011 & 058-59]):
at a first time: receive observed sensor data from a sensor of the one or more sensors showing that a subset of cells of a plurality of cells has been observed, (Receiving observed sensor data from a sensor that shows a subset of cells of the plurality of cells that are within an occlusion probability map have been observed, with the occlusion probability map representing the sensor field of view of the environment. This collection of sensor data will always occur at a first/initial time. see at least [¶05-06, 024, 032 & 031]);
Bybee does not explicitly teach and instruct the steering control system and the speed control system to drive the autonomous vehicle along a path through an area in environment associated with the observed sensor data.
However, Englard does teach and instruct the steering control system and the speed control system to drive the autonomous vehicle along a path through an area in environment associated with the observed sensor data (Controlling an autonomous vehicle to travel along a path/trajectory through an area in an environment associated with observed/un-occluded sensor data. Observed data in this case will be treated as normal sensor data used by all autonomous vehicles. see at least [¶0150-0160 & FIG 12]).
Englard would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of controlling autonomous vehicles using sensor data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Bybee to use the technique of instructing the steering control system and the speed control system to drive the autonomous vehicle along a path through an area in environment associated with the observed sensor data as taught by Englard. Doing so would lead to improved control of a vehicle traveling through an observed area. (see at least [¶0150-0160]).
Bybee and Englard do not explicitly teach at a second time when an elapsed time between the first time and the second time is less than a time threshold: receive first occluded sensor data from the sensor of the one or more sensors showing that the subset of cells has not been observed, and instruct the steering control system and the speed control system to drive the autonomous vehicle along a path through an area in environment associated with the first occluded sensor data; and at a third time when an elapsed time between the first time and the third time is equal to or greater than the time threshold: receive second occluded sensor data from the sensor of the one or more sensors showing that the subset of cells has not been observed, and instruct the steering control system and the speed control system to stop the autonomous vehicle from driving along a path through an area in environment associated with the second occluded sensor data.
However, Akella does teach at a second time when an elapsed time between the first time and the second time is less than a time threshold: receive first occluded sensor data from the sensor of the one or more sensors showing that the subset of cells has not been observed, and instruct the steering control system and the speed control system to drive the autonomous vehicle along a path through an area in environment associated with the first occluded sensor data (Instructing the autonomous vehicle to travel along a path/trajectory in an environment associated with the first/initial occluded sensor data when a difference between a first and second time is below a threshold time. see at least [Column 7-8, Lines 43-48, Column 17-18, Lines 31-7 & Column 23, Lines 7-38]).
and at a third time when an elapsed time between the first time and the third time is equal to or greater than the time threshold: receive second occluded sensor data from the sensor of the one or more sensors showing that the subset of cells has not been observed, and instruct the steering control system and the speed control system to stop the autonomous vehicle from driving along a path through an area in environment associated with the second occluded sensor data (Instructing the autonomous vehicle to stop travel along a path/trajectory in an environment associated with additional occluded sensor data when a difference between a first and second time is above a threshold time. see at least [Column 7-8, Lines 43-48, Column 17-18, Lines 31-7 & Column 23, Lines 7-38]).
Akella would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of occlusion regions and autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Bybee and Gier to use the technique of at a second time when an elapsed time between the first time and the second time is less than a time threshold: receive first occluded sensor data from the sensor of the one or more sensors showing that the subset of cells has not been observed, and instruct the steering control system and the speed control system to drive the autonomous vehicle along a path through an area in environment associated with the first occluded sensor data; and at a third time when an elapsed time between the first time and the third time is equal to or greater than the time threshold: receive second occluded sensor data from the sensor of the one or more sensors showing that the subset of cells has not been observed, and instruct the steering control system and the speed control system to stop the autonomous vehicle from driving along a path through an area in environment associated with the second occluded sensor data as taught by Akella. Doing so would lead to improved control of an autonomous vehicle with updated occluded values for regions (see at least [Column 23, Lines 7-38]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Systems And Methods For Controlling An Autonomous Vehicle With Occluded Sensor Zones (US 20230236602 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)-272-3752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821. 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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights