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
The applicant’s claim to priority of KR10-2024-0190123 on 6/18/2026 is 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.
Claims 4-6 and 12-13 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.Regarding claim 4 (and similarly claims 5-6 and 12), it is unclear how two values measured using different units with the heading angle and driving direction are being compared to find a difference.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is unclear. As the yaw rate profile is based on sensing the target, it is unclear why or how the yaw rate is being decreased rather than being based on the movement of the target.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. (US 11906967 hereinafter Das) in view of Gud (US 20210197862 hereinafter Gud).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 16), Das teaches a method for predicting a driving path of a target, the method comprising:
calculating a heading angle and driving direction of the target based on bounding box of the target, wherein the heading angle of the target is a heading angle of the bounding box of the target;
calculating a yaw rate of the target based on the heading angle and the driving direction of the target (See at least: Fig. 1; Col. 2 line 57 to Col. 3 line 1 via “In techniques described herein, the machine learned model may be used during runtime of an autonomous vehicle or other system to generate accurate object tracks. For example, the model may select or generate the most appropriate predicted yaw for a detected object. The predicted yaw may be associated with a bounding box, for example, and may be used to track an object (e.g., update a state of an object tracker), generate a trajectory, or otherwise control the vehicle. By training and using such model, the techniques discussed herein may more accurately identify a heading of an object, e.g., in comparison to previous techniques.”);
generating a yaw rate profile of the target based on the yaw rate of the target; and
predicting a path of the target based on the yaw rate profile of the target (See at least: Col. 21 lines 29-39 via “(82) At operation 512, the process 500 includes modelling object behavior using the output yaw. For example, the system may update a track to designate the output yaw as the yaw, e.g., in association with a bounding box or other representation, that is used for object tracking (also referred to as “state update” or “track update” for an object tracker). In examples, the output yaw may additionally, or alternatively, be used for other operations, such as generating a trajectory for a vehicle, detecting a potential collision with an object, avoiding a collision with an object, providing augmented reality (AR) content for an object, and so on.” Note: State and track updates disclose yaw rate profile.),
but fails to teach receiving driving information of an ego vehicle and the target from a plurality of sensors attached to the ego vehicle. However, Gud teaches this limitation (See at least: [0125] In the non-limiting embodiments of the present technology, the vehicle 220 further comprises or has access to other sensors (not separately depicted). The other sensors include one or more of: an inertial measurement unit (IMU), a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) instrument, ground speed RADARs, ultrasonic SONAR sensors, odometry sensors including accelerometers and gyroscopes, mechanical tilt sensors, magnetic compass, and other sensors allowing operation of the vehicle 220.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Das in view of Gud to teach so host vehicle readings can be used to determine how to navigate around the target vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Das teaches wherein calculating the yaw rate of the target comprises: calculating a first yaw rate value based on an amount of change in the heading angle of the target; calculating a second yaw rate value based on an amount of change in the driving direction of the target; calculating a third yaw rate value based on a difference between the heading angle and driving direction of the target; and calculating the yaw rate of the target based on the first yaw rate value, the second yaw rate value, and the third yaw rate value (See at least: Col. 21 lines 29-39 via “(82) At operation 512, the process 500 includes modelling object behavior using the output yaw. For example, the system may update a track to designate the output yaw as the yaw, e.g., in association with a bounding box or other representation, that is used for object tracking (also referred to as “state update” or “track update” for an object tracker). In examples, the output yaw may additionally, or alternatively, be used for other operations, such as generating a trajectory for a vehicle, detecting a potential collision with an object, avoiding a collision with an object, providing augmented reality (AR) content for an object, and so on.” Note: State and track updates disclose yaw rate profile and various yaw rates with each update.).
Regarding claim 3, Das teaches wherein a tracking time of at least one of the plurality of sensors for the target is longer than a predetermined time length for calculating the first yaw rate value, the second yaw rate value, and the third yaw rate value (Refer at least to claim 2 for reasoning and rationale as each update is a shorter time than then the overall tracking of the target.).Regarding claim 7, Das teaches wherein the yaw rate of the target is a yaw rate with a minimum absolute value from the first yaw rate value, the second yaw rate value, and the third yaw rate value (Refer at least to claim 2 for reasoning and rationale. Yaw rate will always be some absolute value with a minimum of zero.).
Regarding claim 8, Das teaches wherein signs of the first yaw rate value, the second yaw rate value, and the third yaw rate value are same with each other (Refer at least to claim 2 for reasoning and rationale. Das discloses measuring yaw rate and the first, second and third yeah rate values could be the same if the target is traveling in a constant heading/direction).
Regarding claim 9, Das teaches wherein the plurality of sensors comprises different types of sensors, and wherein the target is recognized by two or more different types of sensors from the plurality of sensors (See at least: Col. 4 lines 30-50 via “he vehicle 102 collects data as it travels through the environment 100. For example, the vehicle 102 includes one or more sensor systems 110, which can include, for example, one or more LiDAR sensors, RADAR sensors, SONAR sensors, time-of-flight sensors, image sensors, audio sensors, infrared sensors, location sensors, etc., or any combination thereof. The sensor system(s) 110 are disposed to capture sensor data 112 associated with the environment. For example, the sensor data may be processed by a vehicle control system or other processing system to identify and/or classify data associated with objects in the environment 100, such as the additional vehicle 108. In addition to identifying and/or classifying the data associated with the additional vehicle 108, the vehicle control system may also identify and/or classify additional objects, e.g., trees, vehicles, pedestrians, buildings, road surfaces, signage, barriers, road markings, or the like. In specific implementations of this disclosure, the sensor data 110 may be processed by the vehicle control system to identify portions of the data that are associated with dynamic objects in the environment 100, such as the additional vehicle 108.”).
Regarding claim 14, Das teaches wherein predicting the path of the target comprises:(a) adding a point representing a position and heading angle of the target at current time to a path prediction point set of the target;(b) calculating a position of the target at next time point based on a previous point and speed profile of the target; (c) calculating a heading angle of the target at next time point based on the yaw rate profile of the target;(d) adding a point representing the position and the heading angle of the target at the next time point to the path prediction point set of the target; and(e) repeating the steps (b), (c) and (d) for each of time points included in a prediction time window of the target (See at least: Col. 2 lines 61-65 via “The predicted yaw may be associated with a bounding box, for example, and may be used to track an object (e.g., update a state of an object tracker), generate a trajectory, or otherwise control the vehicle.”). Regarding claim 15, Das teaches wherein the target is lane-related driving, wherein predicting the path of the target comprises: receiving at least one of lane information and map information; and calculating speed of the target in an S-N coordinate based on the yaw rate profile of the target (Refer at least to claim 1 for reasoning and rationale. See also Fig. 1 with lane tracking.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Gud and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20200200905 hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 10, Das fails to teach the following limitation but Lee teaches wherein a speed of the target is greater than a first predetermined speed (See at least: [0044] via “For example, the on-board system 130 may be able to determine a reliable heading for vehicles that are moving above a threshold speed in a particular direction.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Das in view of Lee to teach wherein a speed of the target is greater than a first predetermined speed to make sure the vehicle can determine a reliable heading for itself based on the target.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Gud and further in view of Gautam et al. (US 20210402991 hereinafter Gautam).
Regarding claim 10, Das fails to teach the following limitation but Gautam teaches wherein a speed of the target is less than a second predetermined speed. (See at least: [0070] The motion planning system 128 can determine a motion plan and generate motion plan data 134 for the vehicle 108 based at least in part on the prediction data 132 (and/or other data). The motion plan data 134 can include vehicle actions with respect to the objects proximate to the vehicle 108 as well as the predicted movements. For instance, the motion planning system 128 can implement an optimization algorithm that considers cost data associated with a vehicle action as well as other objective functions (e.g., cost functions based on speed limits, traffic lights, and/or other aspects of the environment), if any, to determine optimized variables that make up the motion plan data 134. By way of example, the motion planning system 128 can determine that the vehicle 108 can perform a certain action (e.g., pass an object) without increasing the potential risk to the vehicle 108 and/or violating any traffic laws (e.g., speed limits, lane boundaries, signage). The motion plan data 134 can include a planned trajectory, velocity, acceleration, and/or other actions of the vehicle 108.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Das in view of Gautam to teach wherein a speed of the target is less than a second predetermined speed to make sure the vehicle can determine a reliable heading for itself based on the target.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automaed information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights