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.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park, et al., US 2019/0016346 A1.
As per Claim 1, Park teaches an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (¶¶ 65, 73; autonomous vehicle 100 of Figure 1) comprising:
one or more central processing units (CPUs) (¶¶ 79-81; processor 270 of Figure 7);
one or more graphics processing units (GPUs) (¶ 241; from among “digital signal processors (DSPs)”);
one or more hardware accelerators (¶ 238; as part of controller 170 of Figure 7); and
one or more sensors having one or more sensory fields to a rear of the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (¶¶ 232-233; as part of sensing unit 120 of Figure 7), wherein the autonomous or semi- autonomous machine is to:
analyze sensor data obtained using the one or more sensors to determine whether an object is present in at least a portion of the one or more sensory fields (¶¶ 222, 226, 228; through “object detecting apparatus 300” of Figure 7); and
based at least on the analysis, perform an automatic emergency braking (AEB) system of the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (¶ 501; “by activating an Autonomous Emergency Brake (AEB) function”).
As per Claim 10, Park teaches a system (¶¶ 65, 73; autonomous vehicle 100 of Figure 1) comprising:
one or more central processing units (CPUs) (¶¶ 79-81; processor 270 of Figure 7);
one or more graphics processing units (GPUs) (¶ 241; from among “digital signal processors (DSPs)”);
one or more hardware accelerators (¶ 238; as part of controller 170 of Figure 7); and
one or more sensors having one or more sensory fields to a rear of a machine (¶¶ 232-233; as part of sensing unit 120 of Figure 7), wherein the system causes the machine to perform one or more braking operations based at least on an analysis of sensor data, obtained using the one or more sensors, to determine whether an object is present in at least a portion of the one or more sensory fields (¶¶ 222, 226, 228; through “object detecting apparatus 300” of Figure 7).
As per Claim 16, Park teaches at least one system-on-a-chip (SoC) (¶ 72; operation system 700 of Figure 7) comprising:
one or more central processing units (CPUs) (¶¶ 79-81; processor 270 of Figure 7);
one or more graphics processing units (GPUs) (¶ 241; from among “digital signal processors (DSPs)”);
one or more hardware accelerators (¶ 238; as part of controller 170 of Figure 7); and
one or more sensors having one or more sensory fields (¶¶ 232-233; as part of sensing unit 120 of Figure 7), wherein the at least one SoC causes a machine to perform an automatic emergency braking (AEB) system based at least on an analysis of sensor data obtained using the one or more sensors to determine whether an object is present in at least a portion of the one or more sensory fields (¶¶ 222, 226, 228; through “object detecting apparatus 300” of Figure 7).
As per Claims 3, 12 and 18, Park teaches that the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine is to, based at least on the determination that the object is present, configure at least one braking profile setting used to control the AEB system (¶ 506; in deciding whether to “ignore the input of the brake pedal”).
As per Claims 4, 13 and 19, Park teaches that the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine is to, based at least on the determination that the object is present, configure at least one activation criterion for triggering the AEB system (¶ 500; e.g., finding “a case where the second signal associated with the traffic light has been detected and the shoe 900 does not press the brake pedal 1220” as in Figures 9 and 12).
As per Claim 5, Park teaches that the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine performs the AEB based at least on determining the object is within a threshold distance (¶ 140; e.g., finding “objects which are located within a predetermined range based on the vehicle 100” of Figure 1).
As per Claims 6 and 14, Park teaches that the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine performs the AEB based at least on detecting a second object in one or more of the one or more sensory fields or one or more second sensory fields of the one or more sensors (¶ 140; e.g., “objects which are located within a predetermined range based on the vehicle 100” as in more than one object).
As per Claim 7, Park teaches that the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine performs the AEB based at least on analyzing a trajectory of the object relative to a projected path of the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (¶ 227).
As per Claim 8, Park teaches that the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine performs the AEB based at least on analyzing second sensor data corresponding to one or more of a front or a side of the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (¶¶ 332, 334, 336, 339; after seeing “the front-side vehicle”).
As per Claim 9, Park teaches that the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine performing the AEB based at least on the analysis includes one or more of: triggering the AEB responsive to the object being detected (¶¶ 491-492; “a graphic object”); or configuring one or more settings used by the AEB.
As per Claims 15 and 20, Park teaches that the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (¶ 256; vehicle control device 800 of Figure 7); a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (¶ 257; “sensing unit 820” of Figure 8); a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
As per Claims 15 and 20, Park teaches that the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (¶ 256; vehicle control device 800 of Figure 7); a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (¶ 257; “sensing unit 820” of Figure 8); a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
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.
Claims 2, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Parker, et al., GB 2,511,748 A.
As per Claims 2, 11 and 17, Park does not expressly teach that the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine is in a reverse mode during activation of the automatic emergency braking (AEB) system. Parker teaches that the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine is in a reverse mode during activation of the automatic emergency braking (AEB) system (page 5, lines 28-30). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to use the AEB system of Park during reverse travel, such as Parker teaches, in order to increase driver or passenger confidence that the vehicle in which they ride can avoid an accident in any travel direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights