Baidu USA LLC et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 1, 20212021000969 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/509,181 03/06/2017 Qi LUO 209922.0097.1 (P081) 3315 156433 7590 10/01/2021 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP/Baidu USA LLC ATTN: IP Docketing P.O. Box 7037 Atlanta, GA 30357-0037 EXAMINER GORDON, MATHEW FRANKLIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3665 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/01/2021 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): IPDocketing@wbd-us.com KGSPatents@wbd-us.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte QI LUO, QI KONG, FAN ZHU, SEN HU, XIANG YU, ZHENGUANG ZHU, YUCHANG PAN, JIARUI HE, HAOYANG FAN, GUANG YANG, and JINGAO WANG Appeal 2021-000969 Application 15/509,181 Technology Center 3600 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, 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 1–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as Baidu USA LLC and Baidu.com Times Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000969 Application 15/509,181 2 We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “controlling an autonomous driving vehicle when reentering an autonomous driving mode from a manual driving mode.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method for operating an autonomous driving vehicle, the method comprising: detecting a transition of the autonomous driving vehicle (ADV) from a manual driving mode to an autonomous driving mode; determining a first speed reference based on a current position of the ADV measured in response to a first speed control command issued at a previous command cycle and a target speed of a current command cycle; determining a second speed reference based on a current target position for the current command cycle; and generating a second speed control command to control speed of the ADV during the transition based on the first speed reference, the second speed reference, and the target speed for the current command cycle, such that the ADV operates in a similar acceleration rate or deceleration rate before and after transitioning from the manual driving mode to the autonomous driving mode. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Appeal 2021-000969 Application 15/509,181 3 Name Reference Date Vivek US 6,442,472 B1 Aug. 27, 2002 Karnjate US 2008/0243323 A1 Oct. 2, 2008 Peake US 7,706,976 B1 Apr. 27, 2010 Park US 2016/0179092 A1 June 23, 2016 Otsuka US 2016/0362116 A1 Dec. 15, 2016 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4–6, 11, 14–17, and 20–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Otsuka and Park. Final Act. 5–7. Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Otsuka, Park, and Peake. Final Act. 7–10. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Otsuka, Park, and Karnjate. Final Act. 11–12. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Otsuka, Park, and Vivek. Final Act. 12–13. OPINION The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 4–6, 11, 14–17, and 20–22 over Otsuka and Park The Examiner finds Otsuka and Park teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 5–6; see also Ans. 3–8. The Examiner finds Otsuka teaches most limitations of claim 1, but finds “Otsuka is not explicit on a second speed control command during the transition from [sic] autonomous to [sic] manual driving.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds “Park discloses methods and apparatus for switching driving modes of a vehicle . . . such that the ADV operates in a similar acceleration rate or deceleration rate before and after transitioning from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode.” Final Act. 6 (citing Park ¶¶ 63–68). The Examiner reasons “[i]t Appeal 2021-000969 Application 15/509,181 4 would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Park with the system disclosed by Otsuka in order to enable a driver to safely switch driving modes.” Final Act. 6 (citing Park ¶ 85). Appellant presents the following principal arguments: Because clearly Appellant’s claim 1 is directed to generating an autonomous driving control command during the transition from a manual driving mode to an autonomous driving mode, such that the ADV operates in a similar acceleration rate or deceleration rate before and after transitioning, to ensure a smooth transition, Otsuka is related to a fundamentally different invention: in Appellant’s claimed invention, the transition from manual driving to autonomous driving is already given, and the question is how to generate the control command during the transition to ensure that the transition is smooth, whereas in Otsuka whether to transition from manual driving to autonomous driving is to be determined. Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 8–15. “Park only ever teaches the transition from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode. Because Appellant’s claimed invention is related to the transition from a manual driving mode to an autonomous driving mode (i.e., a transition in the opposite direction), the teachings of Park are completely irrelevant.” Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 15–16. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Appellant’s principal arguments do not show any reversible Examiner error. Appellant principally argues that Otsuka teaches determining whether or not to transition from manual driving to autonomous driving, and this is Appeal 2021-000969 Application 15/509,181 5 fundamentally different than the claimed invention. In addition, Appellant principally argues that Park only teaches transition from autonomous driving to manual driving, and is thus not relevant. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Otsuka, referring to Figure 2, discloses the following: If the difference of the manual driving operation amount from the autonomous driving operation amount is equal to or smaller than the operation amount threshold for the steering operation, the driving state switching unit 14a determines whether the difference of the manual driving operation amount of the acceleration/deceleration operation performed via the manual driving operation from the autonomous driving operation amount of the acceleration/deceleration operation performed via the autonomous driving operation is equal to or smaller than the operation amount threshold that is set for the acceleration/deceleration operation (S15). Otsuka ¶ 50. Otsuka further discloses switching to autonomous driving at block S16 when the determined amount is below the threshold, and continuing manual driving when the determined amount is not below the threshold at block S17. Otsuka, Fig. 2. Thus, Otsuka prevents sudden acceleration or deceleration by preventing the mode transition to autonomous driving when sudden acceleration or deceleration would result. Otsuka ¶ 50, Fig. 2. Park discloses the concept of operating in a similar acceleration rate or deceleration rate before and after transitioning from autonomous driving Appeal 2021-000969 Application 15/509,181 6 mode to manual driving mode. See Park ¶ 66 (“When it is determined that the virtual speed is maintained to be the same as or similar to the current speed for the pre-set reference time (for example, three to five seconds), a switch from automatic driving mode to the manual driving mode occurs.”). We recognize that Park describes transitioning from autonomous driving mode to manual driving mode. Park ¶ 66. Nonetheless, a skilled artisan would have understood that, more generally, Park teaches the concept of operating in a similar acceleration rate or deceleration rate before and after transitioning from one mode to another mode. See Park ¶ 66 When this more general understanding of Park’s teachings is applied to Otsuka’s system by a skilled artisan, the result is preventing sudden acceleration or deceleration by operating in a similar acceleration rate or deceleration rate before and after transitioning from manual driving to autonomous driving. Otsuka ¶ 50, Fig. 2; Park ¶ 48. Thus, the combined teachings of Otsuka and Park suggest generating a second speed control command to control speed of the ADV during the transition based on the first speed reference, the second speed reference, and the target speed for the current command cycle, such that the ADV operates in a similar acceleration rate or deceleration rate before and after transitioning from the manual driving mode to the autonomous driving mode as recited in claim 1. The Examiner has articulated a reason to combine the teachings of the references that is rational on its face and supported by evidence drawn from the record. Final Act. 6 (citing Park ¶ 85). Appellant has not presented any additional particularized arguments as to why this reasoning is incorrect. Appeal 2021-000969 Application 15/509,181 7 Above, we have directly addressed the principal arguments presented by Appellant. Appellant’s additional arguments on pages 7–8 of the Appeal Brief allege that Otsuka fails to teach various claim features. However, Appellant has not squarely addressed the particulars of the Examiner’s findings, and for this reason, we determine that these additional arguments do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings. Regarding Appellant’s additional arguments in the Reply Brief, to the extent these arguments go beyond those presented in the Appeal Brief, according to our rules, “[a]ny argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer, including any designated new ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Here, Appellant’s additional arguments were not presented in the Appeal Brief and are not responsive to an argument raised in the Examiner’s Answer. Further, although in the Answer, the Examiner appears to provide more detail, the rejection remains the same and Appellant does not provide good cause why the arguments could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. Thus, these arguments are waived. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4–6, 11, 14–17, and 20–22, which are not separately argued with particularity. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 18, and 19 over Otsuka, Park, and Peake In the Appeal Brief, Appellant presents particularized arguments only for claim 3. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appeal 2021-000969 Application 15/509,181 8 The Examiner finds Peake teaches “determining a third speed reference based on the measured current position of the ADV using the predetermined algorithm” (claim 3). Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds Otsuka teaches “generating the first speed reference based on the third speed reference and a current speed of the ADV measured in response to the first speed control command issued at the previous command cycle” (claim 3). Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 9. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant presents the following principal argument: “For [the] same reasons as explained in detail above [with respect to claim 1], Otsuka also fails to teach or suggest the features recited in claim 3.” Appeal Br. 10. The principal argument presented in the Appeal Brief does not show any reversible Examiner error because Appellant has not squarely addressed the particulars of the Examiner’s findings. Regarding Appellant’s additional arguments in the Reply Brief, to the extent these arguments go beyond those presented in the Appeal Brief, according to our rules, “[a]ny argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer, including any designated new ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). As discussed above regarding claims 1, 4–6, 11, 14–17, and 20–22, the additional arguments were not presented in the Appeal Brief, are not responsive to an argument raised by the Examiner in the Answer, and good cause has not been shown for newly presenting the arguments. Thus, these arguments are waived. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3. Appeal 2021-000969 Application 15/509,181 9 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 12, 13, 18, and 19, which are not separately argued with particularity. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7 and 8 over Otsuka, Park, and Karnjate Claim 7 The Examiner finds Otsuka teaches “measuring a torque value based on sensor data from the ADV in response to the first speed control command issued at the previous command cycle, the torque value representing torque of the ADV” (claim 7). Final Act. 11 (citing Otsuka ¶¶ 39–44). The Examiner finds Karnjate teaches “converting the torque value to the first pedal value using a predetermined algorithm” (claim 7). Final Act. 11 (citing Karnjate ¶¶ 5, 30–38); see also Ans. 9 (citing Karnjate ¶ 36). Appellant presents the following principal argument: Karnjate does not teach “converting the torque value to the first pedal value using a predetermined algorithm” (claim 7) because Karnjate discloses “pedal measurements to braking torque translation/conversion.” Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 22. Appellant’s principal argument does not show any reversible Examiner error. Karnjate discloses “[t]he algorithm determines a first braking torque request corresponding to the apply force, and a second braking torque request corresponding to the travel position.” Karnjate, Abstract; see also Karnjate ¶ 36 (“travel-based brake request curve C”). Thus, Karnjate teaches an algorithm that relates travel position to braking torque. Karnjate, Abstract, ¶ 36. We determine a skilled artisan would also have understood Karnjate as teaching or at least suggesting an algorithm that relates braking Appeal 2021-000969 Application 15/509,181 10 torque to travel position, thus, suggesting “converting the torque value to the first pedal value using a predetermined algorithm” (claim 7). We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. Claim 8 The Examiner finds Karnjate teaches wherein converting the torque value to the first pedal value comprises performing a lookup operation in a torque to pedal (torque/pedal) mapping table based on the torque value, and wherein the torque/pedal mapping table includes a plurality of mapping entries, each mapping entry mapping a particular torque value to a pedal value as recited in claim 8. Final Act. 11 (citing Karnjate ¶¶ 30–38); see also Ans. 9–10 (citing Karnjate ¶ 35). Appellant presents the following principal argument: Karnjate does not teach the subject matter of claim 8 because Karnjate discloses “pedal measurements to braking torque translation/conversion.” Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 23. Appellant’s principal argument does not show any reversible Examiner error. Karnjate discloses “[e]ach of the points of curves A and C are taken directly from the previously described force-based and travel position-based lookup tables 90 and 91.” Karnjate ¶ 35. We determine a skilled artisan would also have understood Karnjate as teaching or at least suggesting an algorithm that relates braking torque to travel position using a lookup table, thus, suggesting the subject matter of claim 8. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 9 and 10 over Otsuka, Park, and Vivek Appeal 2021-000969 Application 15/509,181 11 In the Appeal Brief, Appellant presents particularized arguments only for claim 9. Appeal Br. 11–12. The Examiner finds Vivek teaches “wherein determining a second pedal value based on the current speed of the ADV comprises performing a lookup operation in a speed to pedal (speed/pedal) conversion table based on the current speed of the ADV” (claim 9). Final Act. 12 (citing Vivek, col. 3, l. 45–col. 4, l. 17, Fig. 3); see also Ans. 10–11 (citing Vivek, col. 3, ll. 45– 55, Fig. 3). Appellant presents the following principal argument: Vivek does not teach the subject matter of claim 9 because “Figure 3 of Vivek, as relied on by the Examiner, is a lookup table of acceleration as a function of accelerator pedal displacement and vehicle speed.” Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 25. Appellant’s principal argument does not persuade us of reversible Examiner error. Vivek discloses a lookup table of acceleration as a function of accelerator pedal displacement and vehicle speed. Vivek, col. 3, l. 45–col. 4, l. 17, Fig. 3. We determine a skilled artisan would have understood Vivek as teaching or at least suggesting the subject matter of claim 9 including the “speed to pedal (speed/pedal) conversion table” (claim 9) because Vivek converts vehicle speed to acceleration (pedal value). We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9. Regarding Appellant’s additional arguments in the Reply Brief, to the extent these arguments go beyond those presented in the Appeal Brief, according to our rules, “[a]ny argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer, including any designated new ground of rejection, Appeal 2021-000969 Application 15/509,181 12 will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). For the same reasons discussed above regarding claims 1, 4–6, 11, 14–17, and 20–22, these arguments are waived. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4–6, 11, 14–17, 20–22 103 Otsuka, Park 1, 4–6, 11, 14–17, 20–22 2, 3, 12, 13, 18, 19 103 Otsuka, Park, Peake 2, 3, 12, 13, 18, 19 7, 8 103 Otsuka, Park, Karnjate 7, 8 9, 10 103 Otsuka, Park, Vivek 9, 10 Overall Outcome 1–22 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation