PTAB

IPR2019-00250

SZ DJI Technology Co Ltd v. Autel Robotics USA LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Calculating a 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," and a control system to generate speed commands for vehicle actuators.

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 (Journal of Field Robotics, Aug. 2006).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Andersson discloses a complete system for autonomous vehicle speed control, including receiving sensor data, generating a "speed plan" (the desired speed), and outputting it to a control system that adjusts actuators. Andersson also disclosed outputting information indicating why a speed was selected (e.g., a "dangerous curve ahead" warning), which Petitioner contended meets the "speed command category" limitation of claim 9. However, Andersson lacked specific algorithms for calculating the desired speed. Urmson, a journal article on high-speed navigation, was alleged to supply these missing details, teaching a "speed planner" that uses specific two-pass algorithms to determine a maximum safe speed at each point along a path.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Urmson's detailed speed planning algorithms with Andersson’s general system framework. The motivation was to implement the high-level concepts in Andersson using the specific, proven algorithms from Urmson to create a safer, more reliable, and more effective autonomous driving system.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because Urmson’s algorithms were designed to use the same types of sensor inputs (e.g., road friction, curve radius) already contemplated by Andersson, making integration straightforward via software modification with predictable results.

Ground 2: Claims 14-17 are obvious over Urmson in view of Augenbraun and Fregene.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Urmson (Journal of Field Robotics, Aug. 2006), Augenbraun (Application # 2007/0061040), and Fregene (Application # 2007/0078600).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted independent claim 14, a program product claim. Petitioner asserted that Urmson's navigation software, which includes a "speed planner" and "geometric planner," discloses the claimed program instructions for calculating a desired speed based on sensor data and prioritized constraints. Specifically, Urmson taught prioritizing obstacle avoidance over other constraints like speed limits. To meet the "programmable processor" element, Petitioner cited Augenbraun, which disclosed implementing autonomous control functions on a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA). Fregene was cited to further detail the use of ordered, prioritized constraints, such as overriding "nominal constraints" with "emergency constraints" to avoid a collision.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would implement Urmson's software on a programmable processor like the FPGA in Augenbraun to provide a specific, adaptable hardware solution missing from Urmson. Fregene would be combined to add a more sophisticated constraint hierarchy, improving passenger comfort during normal operation while ensuring maximum performance is available for emergency maneuvers, a key goal in autonomous vehicle design.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a predictable implementation of known software (Urmson) on a common hardware platform (Augenbraun's FPGA) and the integration of a known safety feature (Fregene's constraint hierarchy).

Ground 3: Claims 12-13 are obvious over Andersson, Urmson, and Fregene.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Andersson (Patent 6,836,719), Urmson (Journal of Field Robotics, Aug. 2006), and Fregene (Application # 2007/0078600).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Andersson and Urmson from Ground 1 to address the limitations of claims 12 and 13, which require calculating speed based on "prioritized constraints." Petitioner argued Fregene explicitly taught this concept. Fregene disclosed a system that operates under "nominal constraints" (e.g., limits on acceleration for comfort) but violates these lower-priority constraints to satisfy a higher-priority constraint, such as engaging an "emergency maneuver mode" to avoid a collision.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Fregene's prioritized constraint logic into the Andersson/Urmson system to enhance vehicle safety. This would allow the vehicle to operate efficiently and comfortably under normal conditions but use maximum performance capabilities when necessary to avoid an accident, a paramount concern in autonomous vehicle design.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating Fregene's logic was presented as a straightforward modification to the speed planner's programming, complementing the existing goal of safe navigation without requiring structural changes to the underlying system.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Andersson and Urmson with Ahmed-Zaid (Patent 6,968,266) to address a narrower construction of "speed command category." Another ground added Mandow (a 1997 IEEE publication) to the Urmson/Augenbraun/Fregene combination to further support limitations related to minimum safe speeds.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "speed command category" (Claim 9): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "information that indicates why the desired speed was selected." This construction was based on the patent's specification, which describes the category as indicating the reason for the speed choice (e.g., "speed selected to enforce path curvature constraint"). Petitioner argued this term was added during prosecution to secure allowance and its meaning is central to the obviousness analysis for claim 9.
  • "speed commands" (Claims 9 and 14): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "commands or signals used to adjust the vehicle's speed." This was based on the patent's disclosure of a control system calculating these commands and transmitting them to actuators (e.g., brakes, throttle), supported by dictionary definitions of "command" as an instruction or signal.

5. Relief Requested

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