Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Assistant Commissioner
For Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Dear Sir:
This is a response to the non-final office action of May 5, 2017. Payment for a 2 month
extension of time is submitted concurrently herewith.
Page 1 of 13
Application No. 15/138,069 Reply to Office Action of May 5, 2017
Docket No. ASI-3 Response dated October 19, 2017
to guide an autonomous vehicle along a desired path, the autonomous vehicle control system
a processor; and
a path controller in communication with the processor, the path controller comprising:
comprising:
a normal error signal associated with the autonomous vehicle, the normal
autonomous vehicle;
based on the input signals received at the path controller, the curvature rate output signal
configured to guide the autonomous vehicle along the desired path; and
Page 2 of 13
Application No. 15/138,069 Reply to Office Action of May 5, 2017
Docket No. ASI-3 Response dated October 19, 2017
signal to a steering control system that is configured to receive the curvature rate output
signal and actuate a steering system associated with the autonomous vehicle based on
the curvature rate output signal received from the path controller.
2. (Original) The path controller of claim 1, wherein the steering system is rate-limited and
3. (Original) The path controller of claim 2, wherein the autonomous vehicle includes a
4. (Original) The path controller of claim 1, wherein the input module is further configured
to receive input signals at the path controller comprising at least one of:
a desired error signal, wherein the desired error signal indicates a desired off-path
5. (Original) The path controller of claim 1, wherein the curvature rate module further
comprises a linearization module configured to linearize normal error dynamics in relation to the
desired path by integrating one or more derivatives of the normal error signal received at the
Page 3 of 13
Application No. 15/138,069 Reply to Office Action of May 5, 2017
Docket No. ASI-3 Response dated October 19, 2017
path controller.
6. (Original) The path controller of claim 5, wherein the desired path comprises at least one
7. (Original) The path controller of claim 5, wherein the curvature rate module further
comprises a gain module configured to apply at least one gain value to feedback relating to the
normal error signal to stabilize the curvature rate output signal, wherein the at least one gain
vehicle with a curvature rate output signal in order to guide the autonomous vehicle along a
desired path:
receiving a position and heading of the autonomous vehicle relative to at least one
a normal error signal associated with the autonomous vehicle, the normal
signal indicating a current heading angle of the autonomous vehicle relative to the
Page 4 of 13
Application No. 15/138,069 Reply to Office Action of May 5, 2017
Docket No. ASI-3 Response dated October 19, 2017
at least one fixed point within the fixed coordinate system; and
calculating a curvature rate output signal based on the input signals received at
the path controller, the curvature rate output signal configured to guide the autonomous
communicating the curvature rate output signal to a steering control system that is
configured to receive the curvature rate output signal and actuate a steering system associated
with the autonomous vehicle to control the direction of movement of the autonomous vehicle
based on the curvature rate output signal received from the processor associated with the path
controller.
9. (Original) The method of claim 8, wherein the steering system is rate-limited and has a
10. (Original) The method of claim 9, wherein the autonomous vehicle includes a minimum
11. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 8, wherein receiving input signals at the
processor associated with the path controller comprises receiving at least one of:
Page 5 of 13
Application No. 15/138,069 Reply to Office Action of May 5, 2017
Docket No. ASI-3 Response dated October 19, 2017
a desired error signal, wherein the desired error signal indicates a desired off-path
12. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 8, wherein calculating the curvature rate
output signal based on the input signals received at the processor associated with the path
controller further comprises linearizing normal error dynamics in relation to the desired path by
integrating one or more derivatives of the normal error signal received at the path controller.
13. (Original) The method of claim 12, wherein the desired path comprises at least one of a
14. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 12, wherein calculating the curvature rate
output signal based on the input signals received at the processor associated with the path
controller further comprises applying at least one gain value to feedback relating to the normal
error signal to stabilize the curvature rate output signal, wherein the at least one gain value is
15. (Currently Amended) A computer program product for controlling an autonomous vehicle
comprising:
Page 6 of 13
Application No. 15/138,069 Reply to Office Action of May 5, 2017
Docket No. ASI-3 Response dated October 19, 2017
configured to cause at least one processor associated with a path controller to perform the steps
of:
receiving a position and heading of the autonomous vehicle relative to at least one
a normal error signal associated with the autonomous vehicle, the normal
a desired path;
signal indicating a current heading angle of the autonomous vehicle relative to the
at least one fixed point within the fixed coordinate system; and
autonomous vehicle;
calculating a curvature rate output signal based on the input signals received at
the path controller, the curvature rate output signal configured to guide the autonomous
communicating the curvature rate output signal to a steering control system that
is configured to receive the curvature rate output signal and actuate a steering system
associated with the autonomous vehicle to control the direction of movement of the
Page 7 of 13
Application No. 15/138,069 Reply to Office Action of May 5, 2017
Docket No. ASI-3 Response dated October 19, 2017
autonomous vehicle based on the curvature rate output signal received from the path
controller.
16. (Original) The computer program product of claim 15, wherein the steering system is rate-
17. (Original) The computer program product of claim 16, wherein the autonomous vehicle
includes a minimum right turn radius and a minimum left turn radius.
18. (Currently Amended) The computer program product of claim 15, wherein receiving input
signals at the at least one processor associated with the path controller comprises receiving at
a desired error signal, wherein the desired error signal indicates a desired off-path
19. (Currently Amended) The computer program product of claim 15, wherein calculating the
curvature rate output signal based on the input signals received at the at least one processor
Page 8 of 13
Application No. 15/138,069 Reply to Office Action of May 5, 2017
Docket No. ASI-3 Response dated October 19, 2017
linearizing normal error dynamics in relation to the desired path by integrating one or
more derivatives of the normal error signal received at the at least one processor associated with
applying at least one gain value to feedback relating to the normal error signal to stabilize
the curvature rate output signal, wherein the at least one gain value is selected using a linear
20. (Original) The computer program product of claim 19, wherein the desired path comprises
Page 9 of 13
Application No. 15/138,069 Reply to Office Action of May 5, 2017
Docket No. ASI-3 Response dated October 19, 2017
REMARKS
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected. In the Office Action, claims 1-7 are interpreted
under 35 U.S.C 112(f) as not reciting sufficient structure. Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C 102 as being anticipated by Iwazaki et al. (US2005/0027415-A1, hereinafter
Iwazaki). Claims 5-7, 12-14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Iwazaki in view of Peake et al. (US2015/0346728-A1, hereinafter Peake).
By this paper, Applicants have made an earnest effort to place the application in condition
for allowance by addressing all of the objections and rejections set forth by the Examiner in the
Office Action. Without conceding that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
anticipation and/or obviousness for each claim, claims 1, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 have been
amended. No new matter has been introduced as a result of these amendments. For at least the
following reasons, claims 1-20 are believed to be in condition for allowance.
Page 10 of 13
Application No. 15/138,069 Reply to Office Action of May 5, 2017
Docket No. ASI-3 Response dated October 19, 2017
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended herein to recite features not present in
Iwazaki. For example, claims 1, 18, and 15 have been amended to recite additional claim
elements of at least: relative to at least one fixed point within a fixed coordinate system
and receiving a position and heading of the autonomous vehicle relative to at least one fixed
point within a fixed coordinate system, respectively. Support for these additional claim
elements can be found in at least paragraph [0032] of the application as filed.
These additional claim elements distinguish over the parking assist technology taught in
Iwazaki because the autonomous vehicles taught in the present disclosure operate within a
predefined operating area (e.g., a field, a mine, etc.) that defines a fixed coordinate system
wherein the positions and headings of autonomous vehicles within this fixed coordinate system
are determined relative to at least one fixed point within the fixed coordinate system. In
contrast, the manned cars taught in Iwazaki do not utilize a fixed coordinate system for guidance
in the parking assist mode. Rather, the cars taught in Iwazaki utilize a backup camera and image
processing techniques for guidance by determining the relative position and heading of the car
in relation to a desired target parking position that is selected by the driver on an image acquired
by the backup camera (see at least paragraphs [0021], [0024], [0027], [0029] and FIG. 1 in
Iwazaki).
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as amended, teach at least these additional
claim elements which are not taught in Iwazaki, and therefore claims 1, 8, and 15 are not
anticipated by Iwazaki. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depend from independent claims 1, 8, and 15
respectively, and are also allowable over Iwazaki for the same reasons. Thus, withdrawal of the
rejection of claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C 102 is respectfully requested.
Page 11 of 13
Application No. 15/138,069 Reply to Office Action of May 5, 2017
Docket No. ASI-3 Response dated October 19, 2017
to at least one fixed point within a fixed coordinate system and receiving a position and
heading of the autonomous vehicle relative to at least one fixed point within a fixed coordinate
system would destroy the purpose of the parking assist control system taught in Iwazaki
because the car taught in Iwazaki is not designed to operate within a fixed coordinate system
and/or to determine its position and/or heading relative to a fixed point within a fixed coordinate
system. Moreover, forcing the car taught in Iwazaki to operate in a fixed coordinate system
would render the parking assist control system taught in Iwazaki inoperable for its intended
purpose because it would not allow the driver the freedom of selecting target parking positions
on new images acquired by the backup camera as the driver moves from location to location and
identifies new target parking positions.
In contrast, as previously discussed, the autonomous vehicles of the present disclosure
are designed to operate within a fixed coordinate system defined by an operating area (such as
a field, a mine, etc.), where vehicle positions and/or headings are determined relative to the at
least one fixed point within the fixed coordinate system.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15 as amended, are not obvious over Iwazaki, Peake, or any
combination thereof. Claims 5-7, 12-14, 19, and 20 depend from independent claims 1, 8, and
15, and all are allowable over these references for the same reasons. Thus, withdrawal of the
rejection of claims 5-7, 12-14, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is respectfully requested.
CONCLUSION
For at least the reasons set forth above, Applicants respectfully assert that claims 1-20
are in condition for allowance. Other than as explicitly set forth above, this reply does not include
acquiescence to statements, assertions, assumptions, conclusions, or any combination thereof in
Page 12 of 13
Application No. 15/138,069 Reply to Office Action of May 5, 2017
Docket No. ASI-3 Response dated October 19, 2017
the Office Action. If there are any remaining issues preventing prompt allowance, the Examiner
is respectfully requested to contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
/David Meibos/
______________________________
David Meibos
Attorney for Applicants
Registration No. 45885
Page 13 of 13