DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim 31. Applicant’s remarks filed on 10/27/2025 with respect to previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and persuasive and the Examiner relies upon newly cited reference Stentz et al (US 2018/0209801 A1).
Upon further consideration and review of the claims, an additional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is applied to claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20 and 27-38.
Applicant’s remarks filed on 10/27/2025 with respect to previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and unpersuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 8 and 15 Applicant argues that the combination of Tao et al. (US 2019/0206255 A1) in view of Bastiaensen et al (US 2013/0275033 A1) in view of in Saigusa et al (US 2017/0369055 A1) view Froeberg et al (US 2010/0036599 A1) in further view of Linder et al (US 2017/0076607 A1) in further view of Phillips et al (US 2019/0377351 A1) of claims 1, 8 and 15 is improper (see response pages 8-10) as it fails to explicitly teach “calculating a cost of the one or more routes based on a product of a travel time to the destination of a respective route and a merging indicator of the respective route”.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As modified Tao fails to explicitly teach “calculating a cost of the one or more routes based on a product of a travel time to the destination of a respective route and a merging indicator of the respective route”.
However, Linder teaches “calculating a cost of the one or more routes based on a product of a travel time to the destination of a respective route and a merging indicator of the respective route”, as understood as (See at least ¶ 16, 24 and 60-65) “The server 125 or mobile device 122 optimizes the traffic simulation. For example, the simulation is optimized iteratively, by modifying and re-performing the simulation based on a single set of given input parameters (e.g., the vehicle and environmental parameters). The simulation is iteratively performed until the results of the simulation are within a desired threshold of an optimal solution or when an iteration or series of iterations achieve only small incremental improvements. For example, the simulation is optimized to determine a merge distance and/or merge notification distance that produces a high average speed and short travel time for all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture. Thus, optimizing the merge distance for the vehicles in the simulation may increase the average vehicle speed and vehicle throughput for the merge aperture (e.g., number of vehicles traveling through the merge aperture over a given time). Alternatively, the simulation may be optimized to determine the merge distance that produces the highest average speed and lowest travel time for the merging vehicle” and “map databases, such as geographic databases 123 a and 123 b, are used in computer-based systems that provide useful features to users. For example, map databases are used for the identification of routes to destinations or points of interests. A navigation system determines the optimum route to be taken by the end user to travel from the origin to the destination location from map data stored in a geographic (or map) database. Map databases are also used in advanced driver assistance systems, such as curve warning systems, adaptive cruise control systems and headlight aiming systems” regarding that Linder expressly teaches routes that extend from an origin to a destination, also the merge aperture region is a part of that route, in addition to Linder teaches that vehicles follow navigational paths toward destinations and that the merge region forms a segment of such a route, in addition to, Linder teaches determining the average speed and time required for vehicles to travel through the merge segment which constitute travel time along the route toward the final destination. Regarding the merging indicator Linder teaches multiple measurable merging characteristics including merging difficulty, congestion and blockage conditions, obstacle avoidance behaviors and vehicle interaction patterns that collectively define the merging performance of the route segment, furthermore Linder teaches evaluating the merging behavior together with the travel time of the vehicles in order to assess and optimize the quality and performance of the route segment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20 and 27-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Re Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites:
A method of dynamically detecting dangerous merging situations, the method comprising:
obtaining speed information for one or more road segments, wherein the speed information comprises lane-level traffic speed information, wherein lane-level traffic speed is determined based on speed information from a plurality of vehicles for each lane, wherein the lane-level traffic speed information comprises one or more speed differences between two or more lanes for the one or more road segments;
determining, based on the speed information, a source speed of a source lane and a target speed of a target lane;
determining, based on a comparison of the source speed and the target speed, that a merging instance from the source lane into the target lane of the one or more road segments would be a dangerous merging situation, wherein the dangerous merging situation is a temporal property of the one or more road segments;
determining one or more merging indicators relating to a number of dangerous merging situations along the one or more road segments along one or more routes to a destination, wherein the one or more merging indicators each comprise an aggregate of the number of dangerous merging situations calculated for an associated route;
calculating a cost of the one or more routes based on a product of a travel time to the destination of a respective route and a merging indicator of the respective route; and receiving selection of a preferred route of the one or more routes based on the cost of the one or more routes.
Under Step 1 Claim 1 is a method claim same as claims 6-7, 28-29 and 30-31.
Under Step 2A -Prong 1:
The identified claim limitations that recite an abstract idea fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. These fall under mental process.
Claim 1 recites “A method of dynamically detecting dangerous merging situations, the method comprising: obtaining speed information for one or more road segments, wherein the speed information comprises lane-level traffic speed information, wherein lane-level traffic speed is determined based on speed information from a plurality of vehicles for each lane, wherein the lane-level traffic speed information comprises one or more speed differences between two or more lanes for the one or more road segments; determining, based on the speed information, a source speed of a source lane and a target speed of a target lane; determining, based on a comparison of the source speed and the target speed, that a merging instance from the source lane into the target lane of the one or more road segments would be a dangerous merging situation, wherein the dangerous merging situation is a temporal property of the one or more road segments; determining one or more merging indicators relating to a number of dangerous merging situations along the one or more road segments along one or more routes to a destination, wherein the one or more merging indicators each comprise an aggregate of the number of dangerous merging situations calculated for an associated route; calculating a cost of the one or more routes based on a product of a travel time to the destination of a respective route and a merging indicator of the respective route; and receiving selection of a preferred route of the one or more routes based on the cost of the one or more routes”. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes. As a person/driver, could observe a vehicles around the vehicle and determine if there is speed is less of higher than the own vehicle and also determine if it is safe to merge or not depending on the other vehicle situations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20 and 27-38 are also abstract for similar reasons.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2; the claim does not have any additional elements.
Under Step 2B: The claim does not include any additional elements. Thus, claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20 and 27-38 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, independent claim 8 “apparatus claim” and claim 15 “a non- transitory computer-readable storage medium claim” are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Dependent claims 6-7, 13-14, 20 and 27-38 Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20 and 27-38 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, 27-30, 32-34 and 36-38 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Tao et al. (US 2019/0206255 A1) in view of Bastiaensen et al (US 2013/0275033 A1) in view of in Saigusa et al (US 2017/0369055 A1) view Froeberg et al (US 2010/0036599 A1) in further view of Linder et al (US 2017/0076607 A1) in further view of Phillips et al (US 2019/0377351 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tao discloses a method of dynamically detecting dangerous merging situations the method comprising: (see Tao figures 37&39 and paragraphs “0093” and “0400” “the vehicle 23 may also transmit its driving intention information regarding the lane change to the traffic control unit 14; the traffic control unit 14 controls the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22 according to driving speeds of the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22. For example, if the driving speed of the vehicle 23 is greater than the driving speed of the vehicle 22, the traffic control unit 14 may transmit prompt information for an acceleration to the vehicle 23, and transmit prompt information for a deceleration to the vehicle 22, thereby avoiding a collision between the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22”),
determining based on the speed information a source speed of a source lane and a target speed of a target lane (see Tao paragraph “0093” “the vehicle 23 needs to perform a lane change during the drive, then the vehicle 23 transmits driving intention information regarding the lane change to the vehicle 22; after receiving the driving intention information regarding the lane change of the vehicle 23, a mobile phone, a trip computer, or the OBU in the vehicle 22 warns the driver in the vehicle 22 that the vehicle 23 needs to perform the lane change, and the driver decides to decelerate or accelerate. Alternatively, the vehicle 23 may also transmit its driving intention information regarding the lane change to the traffic control unit 14; the traffic control unit 14 controls the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22 according to driving speeds of the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22. For example, if the driving speed of the vehicle 23 is greater than the driving speed of the vehicle 22, the traffic control unit 14 may transmit prompt information for an acceleration to the vehicle 23, and transmit prompt information for a deceleration to the vehicle 22, thereby avoiding a collision between the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22.”),
determining based on a comparison of the source speed and the target speed, that a merging instance from the source lane into the target lane would be a dangerous merging situation (see Tao paragraph “0093” “the vehicle 23 needs to perform a lane change during the drive, then the vehicle 23 transmits driving intention information regarding the lane change to the vehicle 22; after receiving the driving intention information regarding the lane change of the vehicle 23, a mobile phone, a trip computer, or the OBU in the vehicle 22 warns the driver in the vehicle 22 that the vehicle 23 needs to perform the lane change, and the driver decides to decelerate or accelerate. Alternatively, the vehicle 23 may also transmit its driving intention information regarding the lane change to the traffic control unit 14; the traffic control unit 14 controls the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22 according to driving speeds of the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22. For example, if the driving speed of the vehicle 23 is greater than the driving speed of the vehicle 22, the traffic control unit 14 may transmit prompt information for an acceleration to the vehicle 23, and transmit prompt information for a deceleration to the vehicle 22, thereby avoiding a collision between the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22.”),
But Tao fails to teach obtain speed information for one or more road segments, wherein the speed information comprises lane-level traffic speed information, wherein lane-level traffic speed is determined based on speed information from a plurality of vehicles for each lane.
However, Bastiaensen teaches obtain speed information for one or more road segments, wherein the speed information comprises lane-level traffic speed information, wherein lane-level traffic speed is determined based on speed information from a plurality of vehicles for each lane (see Bastiaensen paragraph “0032” “The lane speed information may be determined in any manner, and using any form of data. In embodiments the lane speed information for each lane is determined using data relating to the movement of each of a plurality of individual vehicles along the lane. The data is traffic data. The data may be data which directly or indirectly allows vehicle speeds to be determined. The data may be vehicle speed data, or data enabling vehicle speed data to be derived. For example, the data may be data relating to the position of vehicles with respect to time.”). Hence, the vehicle knows the distance travel over a period of time and so would be able to determine if there is enough distance and time for the vehicle to merge safely into the space based on the position of the vehicle with respect to time.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Tao to obtain lane level speed information to be able to provide enhanced guidance to users of navigation devices (Bastiaensen paragraph “0032”).
But modified Tao fails to teach wherein the lane-level traffic speed information comprises one or more speed differences between two or more lanes for the one or more road segments and wherein the dangerous merging situation is a temporal property of the one or more road segments.
However, Saigusa teaches wherein the lane-level traffic speed information comprises one or more speed differences between two or more lanes for the one or more road segments and wherein the dangerous merging situation is a temporal property of the one or more road segments (see Saigusa paras “0015”, “0088” and “0095” “The ACC system can generate a response to the effects of the merging vehicle and/or traffic congestion and command vehicle controls to decelerate the subject vehicle gradually, thereby avoiding hard or dangerous braking actions”, “The merge assist calculator 420 can determine the relative speed of the merging remote vehicle 110 as compared to the speed of the traffic 130 and host vehicle 104. The merge assist calculator 420 can also generate a prediction as to whether the merging remote vehicle 110 will affect the speed of traffic 130, or whether traffic 130 will affect the speed of remote vehicle 110. Based on the prediction analysis, ACC system 400 can be configured to control host vehicle 104 systems via the ACC controller 506 for responding to any slowdown of vehicles in the immediate path of the host vehicle 104” and “The merge assist calculator 420 can analyze the remote vehicle's 110 speed and geographic location data and compare to the speed and geographic location data of vehicles in traffic 130.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Modified Tao to determine if the adjacent lane or the merging lane is congested based on speed comparison between the own lane and the merging lane, as taught by (Saigusa paragraph “0088” and “0095”) in order to avoid any hard braking or collision with vehicles in the adjacent lane when merging.
But modified Tao fails to teach determining one or more merging indicators relating to a number of dangerous merging situations along the one or more road segments along one or more routes to a destination, wherein the one or more merging indicators each comprise an aggregate of the number of dangerous merging situations calculated for an associated route.
However, Froeberg teaches determining one or more merging indicators relating to a number of dangerous merging situations along the one or more road segments along one or more routes to a destination, wherein the one or more merging indicators each comprise an aggregate of the number of dangerous merging situations calculated for an associated route (see Froeberg paragraph “0055” regarding determining the risk value while merging using aggregation algorithms “the risk values of the route segments of the candidate route may be aggregated to determine an overall risk value for the candidate route. The aggregation may be a simple sum or a weighted sum. In some embodiments, one or more other aggregation algorithms may be used to determine the candidate risk value.” Also, via paragraph “0088” “For example, an inexperienced driver may be more likely to be at risk in situations where driving judgment comes into play, such as when merging onto a freeway”, in addition to see paragraph “0135” “riskier portions of the determined safest route may be differentiated via an auditory indication. For example, in an in-dash navigation system that provides auditory routing directions, the auditory routing directions may indicate a particularly risky maneuver, e.g., “Take care in making the sharp left turn ahead . . . ” or “Caution, four lanes merging into one lane in 50 yards . . . .” In some embodiments, a type of differentiating indicator for riskier portions of a determined safest route (visual, auditory, or otherwise) may be selectable. For example, the user may select a color-coded differentiation, or the user may select an additional textual warning differentiation.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Modified Tao to select a safest route that is tailored to the user's personal safety preferences by determining the risk value while merging using aggregation algorithms where it calculates the risk value in each lane as the routing directions may indicate a particularly risky maneuver (e.g., “Take care in making the sharp left turn ahead . . . ” or “Caution, four lanes merging into one lane in 50 yards . . . .”) and this is considered a type of differentiating indicator for risker portions of a determined safest route through visual, audio or otherwise in order to allow safe merging (Froeberg paragraph “0055”).
But modified Tao fails to teach calculating a cost of the one or more routes based on a product of a travel time to the destination of a respective route and a merging indicator of the respective route.
However, Linder teaches calculating a cost of the one or more routes based on a product of a travel time to the destination of a respective route and a merging indicator of the respective route (see Linder paragraphs “0018”, “0024” and “0060” “the simulation is optimized to determine a merge distance and/or merge notification distance that produces a high average speed and short travel time for all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture. Thus, optimizing the merge distance for the vehicles in the simulation may increase the average vehicle speed and vehicle throughput for the merge aperture (e.g., number of vehicles traveling through the merge aperture over a given time). Alternatively, the simulation may be optimized to determine the merge distance that produces the highest average speed and lowest travel time for the merging vehicle.” regarding determining the best optimum route that will take the least amount of time to arrive and also with the highest speed to reach the destination faster).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Tao to calculate the optimum route to be taken by the end user to travel from the origin to the destination location as taught by (Linder paragraph “0024”) in order to reach to the final destination route faster and to provide a merge notification to the vehicle that will prevent traffic jams and increase the average speed of all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture.
But modified Tao fails to explicitly teach receiving selection of a preferred route of the one or more routes based on the cost of the one or more routes.
However, Phillips teaches receiving selection of a preferred route of the one or more routes based on the cost of the one or more routes (see Phillips paragraph “0199” “The route selector 988 can be configured to determine a best route maneuver from the plurality of possible route maneuvers. The best route maneuver determined by route selector 988 can be determined at least in part from the low-cost trajectory path determined for each possible route maneuver and a relative urgency factor associated with each possible route maneuver (e.g., how urgent it is for the AV to change lanes at a current time).”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Tao to determine the best route from multiple routes as taught by (Phillips paragraph “0199”) in order to select the best route for the vehicle with the least cost thus providing improved autonomous vehicle driving performance (e.g., safety, comfort).
Regarding claim 6, Tao discloses wherein the one or more merging indicators for one or more routes are updated at a predetermined interval (see Tao paragraphs “0130-0131” regarding the system is being updated every 100ms or less which is analogous to “updated at a predetermined interval” “The system delay is less than or equal to 100 ms, where the system delay may specifically be the total delay time of wireless signal transmission and reception.”).
Regarding claim 7, Tao discloses wherein the comparison of the source speed and the target speed is a direct comparison (see Tao paragraphs “0093”, “0209-0211” and “0432-0433” “the traffic control unit 14 controls the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22 according to driving speeds of the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22. For example, if the driving speed of the vehicle 23 is greater than the driving speed of the vehicle 22, the traffic control unit 14 may transmit prompt information for an acceleration to the vehicle 23, and transmit prompt information for a deceleration to the vehicle 22, thereby avoiding a collision between the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22.”).
Regarding claim 8, Tao discloses an apparatus for dynamically detecting dangerous merging situations (see Tao figures 37&39 and paragraphs “0093” and “0400” “the vehicle 23 may also transmit its driving intention information regarding the lane change to the traffic control unit 14; the traffic control unit 14 controls the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22 according to driving speeds of the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22. For example, if the driving speed of the vehicle 23 is greater than the driving speed of the vehicle 22, the traffic control unit 14 may transmit prompt information for an acceleration to the vehicle 23, and transmit prompt information for a deceleration to the vehicle 22, thereby avoiding a collision between the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22”),
the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory including computer program code instructions, the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to: (see Tao paragraphs “0023-0024”, “0093” and “0398”),
determine based on the speed information, a source speed of a source lane and a target speed of a target lane (see Tao paragraph “0093” “the vehicle 23 needs to perform a lane change during the drive, then the vehicle 23 transmits driving intention information regarding the lane change to the vehicle 22; after receiving the driving intention information regarding the lane change of the vehicle 23, a mobile phone, a trip computer, or the OBU in the vehicle 22 warns the driver in the vehicle 22 that the vehicle 23 needs to perform the lane change, and the driver decides to decelerate or accelerate. Alternatively, the vehicle 23 may also transmit its driving intention information regarding the lane change to the traffic control unit 14; the traffic control unit 14 controls the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22 according to driving speeds of the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22. For example, if the driving speed of the vehicle 23 is greater than the driving speed of the vehicle 22, the traffic control unit 14 may transmit prompt information for an acceleration to the vehicle 23, and transmit prompt information for a deceleration to the vehicle 22, thereby avoiding a collision between the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22.”),
determine based on a comparison of the source speed and the target speed, that a merging instance from the source lane into the target lane would be a dangerous merging situation (see Tao paragraph “0093” “the vehicle 23 needs to perform a lane change during the drive, then the vehicle 23 transmits driving intention information regarding the lane change to the vehicle 22; after receiving the driving intention information regarding the lane change of the vehicle 23, a mobile phone, a trip computer, or the OBU in the vehicle 22 warns the driver in the vehicle 22 that the vehicle 23 needs to perform the lane change, and the driver decides to decelerate or accelerate. Alternatively, the vehicle 23 may also transmit its driving intention information regarding the lane change to the traffic control unit 14; the traffic control unit 14 controls the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22 according to driving speeds of the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22. For example, if the driving speed of the vehicle 23 is greater than the driving speed of the vehicle 22, the traffic control unit 14 may transmit prompt information for an acceleration to the vehicle 23, and transmit prompt information for a deceleration to the vehicle 22, thereby avoiding a collision between the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22.”),
But Tao fails to teach obtain speed information for one or more road segments, wherein the speed information comprises lane-level traffic speed information, wherein lane-level traffic speed is determined based on speed information from a plurality of vehicles for each lane.
However, Bastiaensen teaches obtain speed information for one or more road segments, wherein the speed information comprises lane-level traffic speed information, wherein lane-level traffic speed is determined based on speed information from a plurality of vehicles for each lane (see Bastiaensen paragraph “0032” “The lane speed information may be determined in any manner, and using any form of data. In embodiments the lane speed information for each lane is determined using data relating to the movement of each of a plurality of individual vehicles along the lane. The data is traffic data. The data may be data which directly or indirectly allows vehicle speeds to be determined. The data may be vehicle speed data, or data enabling vehicle speed data to be derived. For example, the data may be data relating to the position of vehicles with respect to time.”). Hence, the vehicle knows the distance travel over a period of time and so would be able to determine if there is enough distance and time for the vehicle to merge safely into the space based on the position of the vehicle with respect to time.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Tao to obtain lane level speed information to be able to provide enhanced guidance to users of navigation devices (Bastiaensen paragraph “0032”).
But modified Tao fails to teach wherein the lane-level traffic speed information comprises one or more speed differences between two or more lanes for the one or more road segments and wherein the dangerous merging situation is a temporal property of the one or more road segments.
However, Saigusa teaches wherein the lane-level traffic speed information comprises one or more speed differences between two or more lanes for the one or more road segments and wherein the dangerous merging situation is a temporal property of the one or more road segments (see Saigusa paras “0015”, “0088” and “0095” “The ACC system can generate a response to the effects of the merging vehicle and/or traffic congestion and command vehicle controls to decelerate the subject vehicle gradually, thereby avoiding hard or dangerous braking actions”, “The merge assist calculator 420 can determine the relative speed of the merging remote vehicle 110 as compared to the speed of the traffic 130 and host vehicle 104. The merge assist calculator 420 can also generate a prediction as to whether the merging remote vehicle 110 will affect the speed of traffic 130, or whether traffic 130 will affect the speed of remote vehicle 110. Based on the prediction analysis, ACC system 400 can be configured to control host vehicle 104 systems via the ACC controller 506 for responding to any slowdown of vehicles in the immediate path of the host vehicle 104” and “The merge assist calculator 420 can analyze the remote vehicle's 110 speed and geographic location data and compare to the speed and geographic location data of vehicles in traffic 130.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Modified Tao to determine if the adjacent lane or the merging lane is congested based on speed comparison between the own lane and the merging lane, as taught by (Saigusa paragraph “0088” and “0095”) in order to avoid any hard braking or collision with vehicles in the adjacent lane when merging.
But modified Tao fails to teach determine one or more merging indicators relating to a plurality of dangerous merging situations along one or more routes to a destination, wherein the one or more merging indicators each comprise an aggregate of the plurality of dangerous merging situations calculated for an associated route.
However Froeberg teaches determine one or more merging indicators relating to a plurality of dangerous merging situations along one or more routes to a destination, wherein the one or more merging indicators each comprise an aggregate of the plurality of dangerous merging situations calculated for an associated route (see Froeberg paragraph “0055” regarding determining the risk value while merging using aggregation algorithms “the risk values of the route segments of the candidate route may be aggregated to determine an overall risk value for the candidate route. The aggregation may be a simple sum or a weighted sum. In some embodiments, one or more other aggregation algorithms may be used to determine the candidate risk value.” Also, via paragraph “0088” “For example, an inexperienced driver may be more likely to be at risk in situations where driving judgment comes into play, such as when merging onto a freeway”, in addition to see paragraph “0135” “riskier portions of the determined safest route may be differentiated via an auditory indication. For example, in an in-dash navigation system that provides auditory routing directions, the auditory routing directions may indicate a particularly risky maneuver, e.g., “Take care in making the sharp left turn ahead . . . ” or “Caution, four lanes merging into one lane in 50 yards . . . .” In some embodiments, a type of differentiating indicator for riskier portions of a determined safest route (visual, auditory, or otherwise) may be selectable. For example, the user may select a color-coded differentiation, or the user may select an additional textual warning differentiation.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Modified Tao to select a safest route that is tailored to the user's personal safety preferences by determining the risk value while merging using aggregation algorithms where it calculates the risk value in each lane as the routing directions may indicate a particularly risky maneuver (e.g., “Take care in making the sharp left turn ahead . . . ” or “Caution, four lanes merging into one lane in 50 yards . . . .”) and this is considered a type of differentiating indicator for risker portions of a determined safest route through visual, audio or otherwise in order to allow safe merging (Froeberg paragraph “0055”).
But modified Tao fails to teach calculate a cost of the one or more routes based on a product of a travel time to the destination of a respective route and a merging indicator of the respective route.
However, Linder teaches calculate a cost of the one or more routes based on a product of a travel time to the destination of a respective route and a merging indicator of the respective route (see Linder paragraphs “0018”, “0024” and “0060” “the simulation is optimized to determine a merge distance and/or merge notification distance that produces a high average speed and short travel time for all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture. Thus, optimizing the merge distance for the vehicles in the simulation may increase the average vehicle speed and vehicle throughput for the merge aperture (e.g., number of vehicles traveling through the merge aperture over a given time). Alternatively, the simulation may be optimized to determine the merge distance that produces the highest average speed and lowest travel time for the merging vehicle.” regarding determining the best optimum route that will take the least amount of time to arrive and also with the highest speed to reach the destination faster).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Tao to calculate the optimum route to be taken by the end user to travel from the origin to the destination location as taught by (Linder paragraph “0024”) in order to reach to the final destination route faster and to provide a merge notification to the vehicle that will prevent traffic jams and increase the average speed of all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture.
But modified Tao fails to explicitly teach receive selection of a preferred route of the one or more routes based on the cost of the one or more routes.
However, Phillips teaches receive selection of a preferred route of the one or more routes based on the cost of the one or more routes (see Phillips paragraph “0199” “The route selector 988 can be configured to determine a best route maneuver from the plurality of possible route maneuvers. The best route maneuver determined by route selector 988 can be determined at least in part from the low-cost trajectory path determined for each possible route maneuver and a relative urgency factor associated with each possible route maneuver (e.g., how urgent it is for the AV to change lanes at a current time).”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Tao to determine the best route from multiple routes as taught by (Phillips paragraph “0199”) in order to select the best route for the vehicle with the least cost thus providing improved autonomous vehicle driving performance (e.g., safety, comfort).
Regarding claim 13, Tao discloses wherein the one or more merging indicators for one or more routes are updated at a predetermined interval (see Tao paragraphs “0130-0131” regarding the system is being updated every 100ms or less which is analogous to “updated at a predetermined interval” “The system delay is less than or equal to 100 ms, where the system delay may specifically be the total delay time of wireless signal transmission and reception.”).
Regarding claim 14, Tao discloses wherein the comparison of the source speed and the target speed is a direct comparison (see Tao paragraphs “0093”, “0209-0211” and “0432-0433” “the traffic control unit 14 controls the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22 according to driving speeds of the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22. For example, if the driving speed of the vehicle 23 is greater than the driving speed of the vehicle 22, the traffic control unit 14 may transmit prompt information for an acceleration to the vehicle 23, and transmit prompt information for a deceleration to the vehicle 22, thereby avoiding a collision between the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22.”).
Regarding claim 15, Tao discloses a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable program code portions stored therein, the computer-executable program code portions comprising program code instructions configured to: (see Tao paragraphs “0023-0024”, “0093” and “0398” “For example, when the terminal device of the vehicle 332 determines that the speed of the vehicle 331 is smaller than the speed of the vehicle 332 according to the vehicle information of the vehicle 331, such as the speed of the vehicle 331, and the speed of the vehicle 332, the terminal device of the vehicle 332 transmits an acceleration warning to the vehicle 332, for example, transmits the acceleration warning to the driver in the vehicle 332 to cause the vehicle 331 to perform the lane change after the vehicle 332 passes quickly.”),
determine based on the speed information, a source speed of a source lane and a target speed of a target lane (see Tao paragraph “0093” “the vehicle 23 needs to perform a lane change during the drive, then the vehicle 23 transmits driving intention information regarding the lane change to the vehicle 22; after receiving the driving intention information regarding the lane change of the vehicle 23, a mobile phone, a trip computer, or the OBU in the vehicle 22 warns the driver in the vehicle 22 that the vehicle 23 needs to perform the lane change, and the driver decides to decelerate or accelerate. Alternatively, the vehicle 23 may also transmit its driving intention information regarding the lane change to the traffic control unit 14; the traffic control unit 14 controls the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22 according to driving speeds of the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22. For example, if the driving speed of the vehicle 23 is greater than the driving speed of the vehicle 22, the traffic control unit 14 may transmit prompt information for an acceleration to the vehicle 23, and transmit prompt information for a deceleration to the vehicle 22, thereby avoiding a collision between the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22.”),
determine based on a comparison of the source speed and the target speed, that a merging instance from the source lane into the target lane would be a dangerous merging situation (see Tao paragraph “0093” “the vehicle 23 needs to perform a lane change during the drive, then the vehicle 23 transmits driving intention information regarding the lane change to the vehicle 22; after receiving the driving intention information regarding the lane change of the vehicle 23, a mobile phone, a trip computer, or the OBU in the vehicle 22 warns the driver in the vehicle 22 that the vehicle 23 needs to perform the lane change, and the driver decides to decelerate or accelerate. Alternatively, the vehicle 23 may also transmit its driving intention information regarding the lane change to the traffic control unit 14; the traffic control unit 14 controls the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22 according to driving speeds of the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22. For example, if the driving speed of the vehicle 23 is greater than the driving speed of the vehicle 22, the traffic control unit 14 may transmit prompt information for an acceleration to the vehicle 23, and transmit prompt information for a deceleration to the vehicle 22, thereby avoiding a collision between the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22.”),
But Tao fails to teach obtain speed information for one or more road segments, wherein the speed information comprises lane-level traffic speed information, wherein lane-level traffic speed is determined based on speed information from a plurality of vehicles for each lane.
However, Bastiaensen teaches obtain speed information for one or more road segments, wherein the speed information comprises lane-level traffic speed information, wherein lane-level traffic speed is determined based on speed information from a plurality of vehicles for each lane (see Bastiaensen paragraph “0032” “The lane speed information may be determined in any manner, and using any form of data. In embodiments the lane speed information for each lane is determined using data relating to the movement of each of a plurality of individual vehicles along the lane. The data is traffic data. The data may be data which directly or indirectly allows vehicle speeds to be determined. The data may be vehicle speed data, or data enabling vehicle speed data to be derived. For example, the data may be data relating to the position of vehicles with respect to time.”). Hence, the vehicle knows the distance travel over a period of time and so would be able to determine if there is enough distance and time for the vehicle to merge safely into the space based on the position of the vehicle with respect to time.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Tao to obtain lane level speed information to be able to provide enhanced guidance to users of navigation devices (Bastiaensen paragraph “0032”).
But modified Tao fails to teach wherein the lane-level traffic speed information comprises one or more speed differences between two or more lanes for the one or more road segments and wherein the dangerous merging situation is a temporal property of the one or more road segments.
However, Saigusa teaches wherein the lane-level traffic speed information comprises one or more speed differences between two or more lanes for the one or more road segments and wherein the dangerous merging situation is a temporal property of the one or more road segments (see Saigusa paras “0015”, “0088” and “0095” “The ACC system can generate a response to the effects of the merging vehicle and/or traffic congestion and command vehicle controls to decelerate the subject vehicle gradually, thereby avoiding hard or dangerous braking actions”, “The merge assist calculator 420 can determine the relative speed of the merging remote vehicle 110 as compared to the speed of the traffic 130 and host vehicle 104. The merge assist calculator 420 can also generate a prediction as to whether the merging remote vehicle 110 will affect the speed of traffic 130, or whether traffic 130 will affect the speed of remote vehicle 110. Based on the prediction analysis, ACC system 400 can be configured to control host vehicle 104 systems via the ACC controller 506 for responding to any slowdown of vehicles in the immediate path of the host vehicle 104” and “The merge assist calculator 420 can analyze the remote vehicle's 110 speed and geographic location data and compare to the speed and geographic location data of vehicles in traffic 130.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Modified Tao to determine if the adjacent lane or the merging lane is congested based on speed comparison between the own lane and the merging lane, as taught by (Saigusa paragraph “0088” and “0095”) in order to avoid any hard braking or collision with vehicles in the adjacent lane when merging.
But modified Tao fails to teach determine one or more merging indicators relating to a plurality of dangerous merging situations along one or more routes to a destination, wherein the one or more merging indicators each comprise an aggregate of the plurality of dangerous merging situations calculated for an associated route.
However Froeberg teaches determine one or more merging indicators relating to a plurality of dangerous merging situations along one or more routes to a destination, wherein the one or more merging indicators each comprise an aggregate of the plurality of dangerous merging situations calculated for an associated route (see Froeberg paragraph “0055” regarding determining the risk value while merging using aggregation algorithms “the risk values of the route segments of the candidate route may be aggregated to determine an overall risk value for the candidate route. The aggregation may be a simple sum or a weighted sum. In some embodiments, one or more other aggregation algorithms may be used to determine the candidate risk value.” Also, via paragraph “0088” “For example, an inexperienced driver may be more likely to be at risk in situations where driving judgment comes into play, such as when merging onto a freeway”, in addition to see paragraph “0135” “riskier portions of the determined safest route may be differentiated via an auditory indication. For example, in an in-dash navigation system that provides auditory routing directions, the auditory routing directions may indicate a particularly risky maneuver, e.g., “Take care in making the sharp left turn ahead . . . ” or “Caution, four lanes merging into one lane in 50 yards . . . .” In some embodiments, a type of differentiating indicator for riskier portions of a determined safest route (visual, auditory, or otherwise) may be selectable. For example, the user may select a color-coded differentiation, or the user may select an additional textual warning differentiation.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Modified Tao to select a safest route that is tailored to the user's personal safety preferences by determining the risk value while merging using aggregation algorithms where it calculates the risk value in each lane as the routing directions may indicate a particularly risky maneuver (e.g., “Take care in making the sharp left turn ahead . . . ” or “Caution, four lanes merging into one lane in 50 yards . . . .”) and this is considered a type of differentiating indicator for risker portions of a determined safest route through visual, audio or otherwise in order to allow safe merging (Froeberg paragraph “0055”).
But modified Tao fails to teach calculate a cost of the one or more routes based on a product of a travel time to the destination of a respective route and a merging indicator of the respective route.
However, Linder teaches calculate a cost of the one or more routes based on a product of a travel time to the destination of a respective route and a merging indicator of the respective route (see Linder paragraphs “0018”, “0024” and “0060” “the simulation is optimized to determine a merge distance and/or merge notification distance that produces a high average speed and short travel time for all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture. Thus, optimizing the merge distance for the vehicles in the simulation may increase the average vehicle speed and vehicle throughput for the merge aperture (e.g., number of vehicles traveling through the merge aperture over a given time). Alternatively, the simulation may be optimized to determine the merge distance that produces the highest average speed and lowest travel time for the merging vehicle.” regarding determining the best optimum route that will take the least amount of time to arrive and also with the highest speed to reach the destination faster).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Tao to calculate the optimum route to be taken by the end user to travel from the origin to the destination location as taught by (Linder paragraph “0024”) in order to reach to the final destination route faster and to provide a merge notification to the vehicle that will prevent traffic jams and increase the average speed of all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture.
But modified Tao fails to explicitly teach receive selection of a preferred route of the one or more routes based on the cost of the one or more routes.
However, Phillips teaches receive selection of a preferred route of the one or more routes based on the cost of the one or more routes (see Phillips paragraph “0199” “The route selector 988 can be configured to determine a best route maneuver from the plurality of possible route maneuvers. The best route maneuver determined by route selector 988 can be determined at least in part from the low-cost trajectory path determined for each possible route maneuver and a relative urgency factor associated with each possible route maneuver (e.g., how urgent it is for the AV to change lanes at a current time).”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Tao to determine the best route from multiple routes as taught by (Phillips paragraph “0199”) in order to select the best route for the vehicle with the least cost thus providing improved autonomous vehicle driving performance (e.g., safety, comfort).
Regarding claim 20, Tao discloses wherein the one or more merging indicators for one or more routes are updated at a predetermined interval (see Tao paragraphs “0130-0131” regarding the system is being updated every 100ms or less which is analogous to “updated at a predetermined interval” “The system delay is less than or equal to 100 ms, where the system delay may specifically be the total delay time of wireless signal transmission and reception.”).
Regarding claim 27, Tao discloses wherein the comparison of the source speed and the target speed is a direct comparison (see Tao paragraphs “0093”, “0209-0211” and “0432-0433” “the traffic control unit 14 controls the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22 according to driving speeds of the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22. For example, if the driving speed of the vehicle 23 is greater than the driving speed of the vehicle 22, the traffic control unit 14 may transmit prompt information for an acceleration to the vehicle 23, and transmit prompt information for a deceleration to the vehicle 22, thereby avoiding a collision between the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22.”).
Regarding claim 28, modified Tao fails to teach recalculating the cost of the one or more routes; and updating the preferred route based on a recalculated cost of the preferred route.
However, Linder teaches recalculating the cost of the one or more routes; and updating the preferred route based on a recalculated cost of the preferred route (see Linder paragraphs “0018”, “0023-0024” and “0060” “The simulation may implement an obstacle avoidance schema (e.g., preventing vehicles from colliding while driving and merging) and a traffic schema (e.g., simulating random vehicle speed increases and decreases, lane changes, traffic lights, turns, etc.) to simulate traffic through the merge aperture” and “the simulation is optimized to determine a merge distance and/or merge notification distance that produces a high average speed and short travel time for all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture. Thus, optimizing the merge distance for the vehicles in the simulation may increase the average vehicle speed and vehicle throughput for the merge aperture (e.g., number of vehicles traveling through the merge aperture over a given time). Alternatively, the simulation may be optimized to determine the merge distance that produces the highest average speed and lowest travel time for the merging vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Tao to calculate the optimum route to be taken by the end user to travel from the origin to the destination location as taught by (Linder paragraphs “0023-0024”) in order to reach to the final destination route faster and to provide a merge notification to the vehicle that will prevent traffic jams and increase the average speed of all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture.
Regarding claim 29, modified Tao fails to teach wherein recalculating the cost of the one or more routes comprises: recalculating a cost of the one or more routes based on the product of a travel time to the destination of the respective route and the merging indicator of the respective route.
However, Linder teaches wherein recalculating the cost of the one or more routes comprises: recalculating a cost of the one or more routes based on the product of a travel time to the destination of the respective route and the merging indicator of the respective route (see Linder paragraphs “0018”, “0024” and “0060” “the simulation is optimized to determine a merge distance and/or merge notification distance that produces a high average speed and short travel time for all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture. Thus, optimizing the merge distance for the vehicles in the simulation may increase the average vehicle speed and vehicle throughput for the merge aperture (e.g., number of vehicles traveling through the merge aperture over a given time). Alternatively, the simulation may be optimized to determine the merge distance that produces the highest average speed and lowest travel time for the merging vehicle.” regarding determining the best optimum route that will take the least amount of time to arrive and also with the highest speed to reach the destination faster).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Tao to calculate the optimum route to be taken by the end user to travel from the origin to the destination location as taught by (Linder paragraph “0024”) in order to reach to the final destination route faster and to provide a merge notification to the vehicle that will prevent traffic jams and increase the average speed of all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture.
Regarding claim 30, Tao discloses dynamically determining a dangerous merging situation along the preferred route; and providing a signal based on dynamic determination of the dangerous merging situation along the preferred route (see Tao figures 37&39 and paragraphs “0090”, “0093” and “0400” “the vehicle 23 may also transmit its driving intention information regarding the lane change to the traffic control unit 14; the traffic control unit 14 controls the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22 according to driving speeds of the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22. For example, if the driving speed of the vehicle 23 is greater than the driving speed of the vehicle 22, the traffic control unit 14 may transmit prompt information for an acceleration to the vehicle 23, and transmit prompt information for a deceleration to the vehicle 22, thereby avoiding a collision between the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22”).
Regarding claim 32, modified Tao fails to teach wherein the apparatus is further caused to: recalculate the cost of the one or more routes; and update the preferred route based on a recalculated cost of the preferred route.
However, Linder teaches wherein the apparatus is further caused to: recalculate the cost of the one or more routes; and update the preferred route based on a recalculated cost of the preferred route (see Linder paragraphs “0018”, “0023-0024” and “0060” “The simulation may implement an obstacle avoidance schema (e.g., preventing vehicles from colliding while driving and merging) and a traffic schema (e.g., simulating random vehicle speed increases and decreases, lane changes, traffic lights, turns, etc.) to simulate traffic through the merge aperture” and “the simulation is optimized to determine a merge distance and/or merge notification distance that produces a high average speed and short travel time for all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture. Thus, optimizing the merge distance for the vehicles in the simulation may increase the average vehicle speed and vehicle throughput for the merge aperture (e.g., number of vehicles traveling through the merge aperture over a given time). Alternatively, the simulation may be optimized to determine the merge distance that produces the highest average speed and lowest travel time for the merging vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Tao to calculate the optimum route to be taken by the end user to travel from the origin to the destination location as taught by (Linder paragraphs “0023-0024”) in order to reach to the final destination route faster and to provide a merge notification to the vehicle that will prevent traffic jams and increase the average speed of all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture.
Regarding claim 33, modified Tao fails to teach wherein causing the apparatus to recalculate the cost of the one or more routes comprises causing the apparatus to: recalculate a cost of the one or more routes based on the product of a travel time to the destination of the respective route and the merging indicator of the respective route.
However, Linder teaches wherein causing the apparatus to recalculate the cost of the one or more routes comprises causing the apparatus to: recalculate a cost of the one or more routes based on the product of a travel time to the destination of the respective route and the merging indicator of the respective route (see Linder paragraphs “0018”, “0024” and “0060” “the simulation is optimized to determine a merge distance and/or merge notification distance that produces a high average speed and short travel time for all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture. Thus, optimizing the merge distance for the vehicles in the simulation may increase the average vehicle speed and vehicle throughput for the merge aperture (e.g., number of vehicles traveling through the merge aperture over a given time). Alternatively, the simulation may be optimized to determine the merge distance that produces the highest average speed and lowest travel time for the merging vehicle.” regarding determining the best optimum route that will take the least amount of time to arrive and also with the highest speed to reach the destination faster).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Tao to calculate the optimum route to be taken by the end user to travel from the origin to the destination location as taught by (Linder paragraph “0024”) in order to reach to the final destination route faster and to provide a merge notification to the vehicle that will prevent traffic jams and increase the average speed of all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture.
Regarding claim 34, Tao discloses wherein the apparatus is further caused to: dynamically determine a dangerous merging situation along the preferred route; and provide a signal based on dynamic determination of the dangerous merging situation along the preferred route (see Tao figures 37&39 and paragraphs “0090”, “0093” and “0400” “the vehicle 23 may also transmit its driving intention information regarding the lane change to the traffic control unit 14; the traffic control unit 14 controls the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22 according to driving speeds of the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22. For example, if the driving speed of the vehicle 23 is greater than the driving speed of the vehicle 22, the traffic control unit 14 may transmit prompt information for an acceleration to the vehicle 23, and transmit prompt information for a deceleration to the vehicle 22, thereby avoiding a collision between the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22”).
Regarding claim 36, modified Tao fails to teach recalculate the cost of the one or more routes; and update the preferred route based on a recalculated cost of the preferred route.
However, Linder teaches recalculate the cost of the one or more routes; and update the preferred route based on a recalculated cost of the preferred route (see Linder paragraphs “0018”, “0023-0024” and “0060” “The simulation may implement an obstacle avoidance schema (e.g., preventing vehicles from colliding while driving and merging) and a traffic schema (e.g., simulating random vehicle speed increases and decreases, lane changes, traffic lights, turns, etc.) to simulate traffic through the merge aperture” and “the simulation is optimized to determine a merge distance and/or merge notification distance that produces a high average speed and short travel time for all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture. Thus, optimizing the merge distance for the vehicles in the simulation may increase the average vehicle speed and vehicle throughput for the merge aperture (e.g., number of vehicles traveling through the merge aperture over a given time). Alternatively, the simulation may be optimized to determine the merge distance that produces the highest average speed and lowest travel time for the merging vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Tao to calculate the optimum route to be taken by the end user to travel from the origin to the destination location as taught by (Linder paragraphs “0023-0024”) in order to reach to the final destination route faster and to provide a merge notification to the vehicle that will prevent traffic jams and increase the average speed of all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture.
Regarding claim 37, modified Tao fails to teach wherein the program code instructions to recalculate the cost of the one or more routes comprise program code instructions to: recalculate a cost of the one or more routes based on the product of a travel time to the destination of the respective route and the merging indicator of the respective route.
However, Linder teaches wherein the program code instructions to recalculate the cost of the one or more routes comprise program code instructions to: recalculate a cost of the one or more routes based on the product of a travel time to the destination of the respective route and the merging indicator of the respective route (see Linder paragraphs “0018”, “0024” and “0060” “the simulation is optimized to determine a merge distance and/or merge notification distance that produces a high average speed and short travel time for all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture. Thus, optimizing the merge distance for the vehicles in the simulation may increase the average vehicle speed and vehicle throughput for the merge aperture (e.g., number of vehicles traveling through the merge aperture over a given time). Alternatively, the simulation may be optimized to determine the merge distance that produces the highest average speed and lowest travel time for the merging vehicle.” regarding determining the best optimum route that will take the least amount of time to arrive and also with the highest speed to reach the destination faster).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Tao to calculate the optimum route to be taken by the end user to travel from the origin to the destination location as taught by (Linder paragraph “0024”) in order to reach to the final destination route faster and to provide a merge notification to the vehicle that will prevent traffic jams and increase the average speed of all vehicles traveling through the merge aperture.
Regarding claim 38, Tao discloses dynamically determine a dangerous merging situation along the preferred route; and provide a signal based on dynamic determination of the dangerous merging situation along the preferred route (see Tao figures 37&39 and paragraphs “0090”, “0093” and “0400” “the vehicle 23 may also transmit its driving intention information regarding the lane change to the traffic control unit 14; the traffic control unit 14 controls the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22 according to driving speeds of the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22. For example, if the driving speed of the vehicle 23 is greater than the driving speed of the vehicle 22, the traffic control unit 14 may transmit prompt information for an acceleration to the vehicle 23, and transmit prompt information for a deceleration to the vehicle 22, thereby avoiding a collision between the vehicle 23 and the vehicle 22”).
Claims 31 and 35 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Tao et al. (US 2019/0206255 A1) in view of Bastiaensen et al (US 2013/0275033 A1) in view of in Saigusa et al (US 2017/0369055 A1) view Froeberg et al (US 2010/0036599 A1) in further view of Linder et al (US 2017/0076607 A1) in further view of Phillips et al (US 2019/0377351 A1) in further view of Stentz et al (US 2018/0209801 A1).
Regarding claim 31, modified Tao fails to teach updating the preferred route based on the dynamic determination of the dangerous merging situation along the preferred route.
However, Stentz teaches updating the preferred route based on the dynamic determination of the dangerous merging situation along the preferred route (see Stentz paragraphs “0037-0041”, “0047”, “0055” and “0071-0074” “the dynamic routing engine 125 can identify a decision point along a current route 139 and make a local risk assessment (e.g., for a dangerous left turn)… the alternative route may be selected based on an optimization between risk and time of a plurality of alternative routes 192 identified by the dynamic route engine 125 in analyzing the processed sensor view 141 and/or a mapping resource (e.g., a live traffic map). In such examples, the dynamic routing engine 125 can determine a risk factor and a time cost for each of the alternative route options 192, and select a most optimal one of the alternative routes 192 (e.g., seeking to minimize both risk and time)” and “the cost analysis engine 225 can optimize the set of alternative routes based solely on risk, and can select an alternative route that comprises the minimal risk. In this example, if a set of three alternative routes are provided in the set 298, then the cost analysis engine 225 can analyze the live sensor view 276 to identify the traffic situation and determine a risk of selecting each of the routes. For example, the live sensor view 276 can indicate whether an alternative route is blocked, whether the SDV 201 will need to change lanes, the traffic implications of selecting an alternative route, a number of vehicles in a turn lane for an alternative route, a traffic signal state for a respective alternative route, and the like. In this example, the cost analysis engine 225 can select a lowest risk route from the route alternatives 298, and generate a trajectory update 257 indicating the selected alternative route. The cost analysis engine 225 may then transmit the trajectory update 257 to the vehicle control system 285 to enable the SDV 201 to autonomously drive along the new route”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Tao to determine a risk factor and a time cost for each of the alternative route options as taught by (Stentz paragraphs “0047-0055”) in order to select a most optimal one of the alternative routes 192 (e.g., seeking to minimize both risk and time).
Regarding claim 35, modified Tao fails to teach update the preferred route based on the dynamic determination of the dangerous merging situation along the preferred route.
However, Stentz teaches update the preferred route based on the dynamic determination of the dangerous merging situation along the preferred route (see Stentz paragraphs “0037-0041”, “0047”, “0055” and “0071-0074” “the dynamic routing engine 125 can identify a decision point along a current route 139 and make a local risk assessment (e.g., for a dangerous left turn)… the alternative route may be selected based on an optimization between risk and time of a plurality of alternative routes 192 identified by the dynamic route engine 125 in analyzing the processed sensor view 141 and/or a mapping resource (e.g., a live traffic map). In such examples, the dynamic routing engine 125 can determine a risk factor and a time cost for each of the alternative route options 192, and select a most optimal one of the alternative routes 192 (e.g., seeking to minimize both risk and time)” and “the cost analysis engine 225 can optimize the set of alternative routes based solely on risk, and can select an alternative route that comprises the minimal risk. In this example, if a set of three alternative routes are provided in the set 298, then the cost analysis engine 225 can analyze the live sensor view 276 to identify the traffic situation and determine a risk of selecting each of the routes. For example, the live sensor view 276 can indicate whether an alternative route is blocked, whether the SDV 201 will need to change lanes, the traffic implications of selecting an alternative route, a number of vehicles in a turn lane for an alternative route, a traffic signal state for a respective alternative route, and the like. In this example, the cost analysis engine 225 can select a lowest risk route from the route alternatives 298, and generate a trajectory update 257 indicating the selected alternative route. The cost analysis engine 225 may then transmit the trajectory update 257 to the vehicle control system 285 to enable the SDV 201 to autonomously drive along the new route”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Method, apparatus and device for controlling a collaborative lane change of Tao to determine a risk factor and a time cost for each of the alternative route options as taught by (Stentz paragraphs “0047-0055”) in order to select a most optimal one of the alternative routes 192 (e.g., seeking to minimize both risk and time).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664