PTAB

IPR2019-00250

SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. v. Autel Robotics USA LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Calculating Desired Speed for an Autonomous Vehicle
  • Brief Description: The ’174 patent discloses a system for regulating the speed of an autonomous vehicle. The system uses sensors to receive input about environmental conditions, a speed planner to calculate a "desired speed" based on that input, and a control system to generate and transmit commands to vehicle actuators to adjust the vehicle's speed.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 9-11 are obvious over Andersson in view of Urmson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Andersson (Patent 6,836,719) and Urmson (a 2006 Journal of Field Robotics article).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Andersson discloses the core method of independent claim 9, including a system for regulating autonomous vehicle speed with a "speed plan generator" (the claimed speed planner) that receives sensor data and outputs a speed plan to a control system and actuators. Petitioner contended that Andersson’s teaching of displaying a warning like "Dangerous curve ahead" along with a recommended speed constitutes the claimed "speed command category." While Andersson describes a complete system, it lacks specific algorithms for calculating the desired speed. Urmson was argued to supply this missing detail, teaching a specific two-pass process for a speed planner to determine a maximum safe speed at each point along a planned path.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) reviewing Andersson would be motivated to look to other references to find specific, proven algorithms for calculating desired speeds to improve system safety and reliability. A POSITA would combine Urmson's detailed speed planning algorithms with Andersson's general framework to create a more robust and effective system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because Urmson's algorithms are designed to use the same types of sensor inputs (e.g., road friction, path curvature) already contemplated by Andersson's system, making the integration straightforward and predictable.

Ground 2: Claims 12-13 are obvious over Andersson in view of Urmson and Fregene.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Andersson (Patent 6,836,719), Urmson (a 2006 Journal of Field Robotics article), and Fregene (Application # 2007/0078600).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Andersson/Urmson combination by adding Fregene to teach the limitations of dependent claims 12 and 13. Fregene discloses calculating speed based on prioritized constraints (claim 12) and permitting the violation of a lower-priority constraint to satisfy a higher-priority one (claim 13). Fregene teaches a collision avoidance system with "nominal constraints" for normal operation and higher-priority "emergency constraints" that override the nominal ones (e.g., speed limits) to avoid an imminent collision.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Fregene's teachings with the Andersson/Urmson system to enhance safety, a paramount concern in autonomous vehicle design. Implementing Fregene's prioritized constraint system would allow the vehicle to operate efficiently under normal conditions while reserving maximum performance for critical emergency maneuvers.

Ground 3: Claims 14-17 are obvious over Urmson in view of Augenbraun and Fregene.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Urmson (a 2006 Journal of Field Robotics article), Augenbraun (Application # 2007/0061040), and Fregene (Application # 2007/0078600).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses independent claim 14, which is a "program product" claim. Petitioner asserted that Urmson's disclosed navigation software, which includes a speed planner, constitutes the claimed "program product." Urmson's software calculates a desired speed based on sensor data and prioritized constraints like collision avoidance and speed limits. Augenbraun was introduced to provide the hardware context, teaching a programmable processor (an FPGA) suitable for implementing autonomous vehicle control functions. Fregene was used, as in Ground 2, to explicitly teach using prioritized constraints.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to implement Urmson's navigation software would be motivated to use a programmable processor like the one taught by Augenbraun to provide a concrete and field-adaptable hardware solution. The motivation to further add Fregene's teachings on prioritized constraints is to improve the system's safety and emergency response capabilities.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Andersson, Urmson, Ahmed-Zaid, and Fregene for claims 12-13 (Ground 4), and adding Mandow to the Urmson/Augenbraun/Fregene combination for claim 15 (Ground 6) to teach stopping the vehicle as a safe speed response to a detected obstacle.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "speed command category" (Claim 9): Petitioner argued this term, which was added during prosecution to secure allowance, should be construed as "information that indicates why the desired speed was selected." This construction was central to Petitioner's argument that Andersson’s warning message ("Dangerous curve ahead") met the limitation. Petitioner also presented an alternative, narrower construction ("information that indicates why a desired speed was selected and/or influences how the actuators adjust the vehicle's speed") and argued obviousness under that construction using the additional reference Ahmed-Zaid.
  • "speed commands" (Claims 9 and 14): Petitioner proposed this term should be construed as simply "commands or signals to adjust the vehicle's speed." This construction provides a straightforward link between the output of the control system and the vehicle's physical actuators (e.g., throttle, brakes).

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 9-17 of the ’174 patent as unpatentable.