2020003959 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2020)

Waymo LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 31, 2020

2020003959 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/899,208 02/19/2018 Joshua Seth Herbach 13-153-US-CON3 5408 145835 7590 12/31/2020 McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP/Waymo 300 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 EXAMINER MANCHO, RONNIE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3666 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/31/2020 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSHUA SETH HERBACH and NATHANIEL FAIRFIELD Appeal 2020-003959 Application 15/899,208 Technology Center 3600 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Oral arguments were heard in this case on December 15, 2020, a transcript of which will be entered into the record in due course. We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Waymo LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-003959 Application 15/899,208 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a trajectory assistance for autonomous vehicles. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: based on sensor input, detecting, by an autonomous vehicle, a condition in which the autonomous vehicle is impeded from traveling according to a first trajectory; transmitting, by a communication unit of the autonomous vehicle and by way of a wireless network, an assistance signal to an assistance center that is remote from the autonomous vehicle, wherein the assistance signal indicates that the autonomous vehicle seeks assistance traveling according to the first trajectory; receiving, by the communication unit of the autonomous vehicle and by way of the wireless network, a response to the assistance signal, wherein the response includes a representation of a second trajectory; and instructing, by a control unit of the autonomous vehicle, the autonomous vehicle to travel according to the second trajectory. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Cudak US 2014/0012494 A1 Jan. 9, 2014 Mudalige US 2014/0207325 A1 July 24, 2014 REJECTION Claims 1–20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mudalige in view of Cudak. Final Act. 14. Appeal 2020-003959 Application 15/899,208 3 OPINION Obviousness The Examiner finds that Mudalige teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except for transmitting via a wireless network and that the assistance center is remote from the autonomous vehicle. Final Act. 15. The Examiner also finds that Cudak teaches these missing limitations via assistance center 50. Id. Although we agree with the Examiner that Cudak teaches something similar to an assistance center via element 50, we disagree that this element meets all of the limitations of claim 1. Among other things, claim 1 requires transmission of a response via a wireless network, “wherein the response includes a representation of a second trajectory.” In the context of the claim, this second trajectory is a new travel path to allow the autonomous vehicle to navigate around an impedance in its first trajectory. In Cudak, the first vehicle 12 requests information regarding the impeding vehicle 14 and the “assistance center” 50 then transmits the trajectory of vehicle 14. Vehicle 12 then uses this information to calculate its own trajectory to navigate around impeding vehicle 14. Cudak ¶ 18. In this manner, the claimed second trajectory is not transmitted from the assistance center or wirelessly, but is calculated by vehicle 12 and then implemented. At best, remote server 50 provides some assistance to vehicle 12 in order to allow it to navigate around vehicle 14, but does not perform the claimed functions. Additionally, it is not as simple as taking the entirety of Mudalige’s assistance center 32 and locating it remotely. Assistance center 32 is actually a navigation controller for the vehicle and performs numerous other functions besides merely the functions described in the claimed assistance center. Mudalige ¶ 18. Accordingly, in order for the rejection to Appeal 2020-003959 Application 15/899,208 4 be proper, the Examiner would have to find a basis to take the analogous functions found in the claims from controller 32 and specifically move those to Cudak’s remote server 50 while leaving controller 32 otherwise intact in the vehicle. Given that Cudak does not teach the remote server performing the same functionality as found in controller 32, we see no basis for the Examiner’s combination. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is REVERSED. More specifically, DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 103(a) Mudalige, Cudak 1–20 REVERSED