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 .
This is a final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 13-16, and 20-28 are rejected and currently pending, as discussed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-8, 13-16, and 20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art of Xu, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Xu fails to teach the step of identifying a plurality of chokepoints, wherein a chokepoint represents a lane segment that, if actually unavailable, would render at least a first portion of the service area inaccessible from a second portion of the service area. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The argued limitation is rejected based not only on Xu, but additionally on Matsumoto. Xu is relied upon only for the limitation of iterating through the pluralities of segments. Since Matsumoto discloses “identifying a plurality of chokepoints based on the plurality of lane segments in the service area, wherein each chokepoint is identified based on the corresponding connectivities, and wherein a chokepoint represents a lane segment that, if actually unavailable, would render at least a first portion of the service area inaccessible from a second portion of the service area”, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the two references to result in the argued limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 14, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220196430 A1, filed 12/18/2020, hereinafter “Matsumoto”, in view of filed 04/15/2019, hereinafter “Xu”, further in view of US 20200088534 A1, filed 09/13/2018, hereinafter “Nakirikanti”, further in view of US 20210356965 A1, filed 05/11/2021, hereinafter “Forster”.
Regarding Claim 1, Matsumoto teaches a method for preventing service disruption in a service area. See at least [0083] and figure 4.
the method comprising: simulating removal of the lane segment from the plurality of lane segments in the service area. See at least [0084]-[0086] and figure 4, steps 404-406, wherein a graph representation, or simulation, of the environment is generated from road data, with particular nodes representing blockage points removed. See at least [0033] and [0046], wherein the graph simulation is generated by removing nodes in the graph that represent blockage points. See at least [0030] and [0075]-[0076], wherein nodes of the graph represent lanes of a road network. See at least [0057], wherein the road data used to generate the graph represents a service area of a fleet of autonomous vehicles. Additionally, see at least [0067]-[0075], wherein the process of removing nodes and determining connectivity can involve virtual nodes and edges in the graph, which, by virtue of being virtual, inherently must be simulated.
and determining, based on the simulated removal of the lane segment, a corresponding connectivity, wherein the corresponding connectivity represents whether the simulated removal of the lane segment would impact travel to or from the service area;. See at least [0087]-[0088] and figure 4, step 408, wherein the graph is analyzed based on the removed absent nodes, for example by determining a minimum cut of the graph. See at least [0036]-[0038], wherein the minimum cut of the graph identifies one or more edges in the service area where removal of the edges would cause one area of the service area to be unreachable from the rest of the service area.
identifying a plurality of chokepoints from the plurality of lane segments in the service area, wherein each chokepoint is identified based on corresponding connectivities, and wherein a chokepoint represents a lane segment that, if actually unavailable, would render at least a first portion of the service area inaccessible from a second portion of the service area. See at least [0087]-[0089 and figure 4, step 410, wherein one or more choke points is identified based on the minimum cut. See at least [0035], [0039]-[0040], [0044], [0060], and [0069], wherein multiple minimum cuts, or connectivities, are calculated. Each minimum cut corresponds to a different pair of locations, sets of locations, or regions in the environment. See at least [0036]-[0038], wherein the minimum cut of the graph identifies one or more edges in the service area where removal of the edges would cause one area of the service area to be unreachable from the rest of the service area.
segmenting the service area into a plurality of map areas, wherein each map area is connected by one or more chokepoints of the plurality of chokepoints; See at least [0040]-[0043], [0050]-[0054], and figure 2B, wherein the environment, or map area, is divided into multiple regions, are chokepoints are identified between the regions.
identifying a fragile map area of the plurality of map area, the fragile map area connected to a remainder of the ODD by one or more chokepoints of the plurality of chokepoints. See at least [0053]-[0057], wherein connectivity is identified for different regions of the service area, and data is calculated for the regions, comprising the number of choke points between a region and every other region. This number quantifies regions that are at high risk of being isolated, or cut off. The isolated, or fragile, regions are connected to the rest of the environment by one or more of the identified chokepoints.
wherein the one or more chokepoints are preemptively given an impassable condition based on the corresponding connectivities of the one or more chokepoints. See at least [0010]-[0012] and [0080]-[0082], wherein vehicles are preemptively instructed to not pass through identified chokepoint 304 in order to prevent traffic congestion.
Matsumoto remains silent on performing the method steps for each lane segment of a plurality of lane segments in the service area, and identifying chokepoints based on iterating through the plurality of lane segments in the service area. As discussed above, Matsumoto teaches performing the method steps for all lane segments corresponding to known blockage points, but not the plurality of lane segments in the service area. Matsumoto additionally remains silent on an operational design domain and segmenting the map area based on the plurality of chokepoints. As discussed above, Matsumoto teaches segmenting the map area first, and then identifying chokepoints between the segmented map areas. Matsumoto finally remains silent on instructing one or more autonomous vehicles present in the fragile map area to self-evict.
Xu teaches iterating through the plurality of lane segments in the service area, for each lane segment, and identifying chokepoints based on iterating through the plurality of lane segments in the service area. See at least [0060], [0067], and figure 4, step S104, wherein the analysis iterates through a list of road segments to identify points with slowdown events, or choke points. In combination with Matsumoto’s teaching, discussed above, of performing analysis on lane segments in a service area, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
segmenting the map area based on the plurality of chokepoints. See at least [0071]-[0073], wherein the slowdown events, or chokepoints, are used to separate dangerous areas to create a geofence.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Matsumoto with Xu’s technique of iterating through road segments. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables efficient and immediate detection of dangerous slowdown events at specific locations in a road network, as recognized by Xu (see at least [0002]-[0004]).
Nakirikanti teaches instructing one or more autonomous vehicles present in the fragile map area to self-evict. See at least [0062] and [0116], wherein instructions are provided to an autonomous vehicle which cause the vehicle to leave a particular area of the service area.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Matsumoto with Nakirikanti’s technique of instructing vehicles to leave an area of the service area. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables more optimal resource utilization for transportation service providers, as recognized by Nakirikanti (see at least [0007]-[0012]).
Forster teaches an operational design domain. See at least [0052], wherein the vehicle capability data 110 includes geofence data 132 representing a service area of an autonomous vehicle, wherein the vehicle capability data 110 is derived from operational design domain (ODD) data.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Matsumoto with Forster’s operational design domain. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables routing engines to appropriately consider vehicle capabilities when coping with roadway conditions, allowing for routing engines to be adapted to a wide variety of different vehicle types, as recognized by Forster (see at least [0020]-[0038]).
Regarding Claim 7, Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, and Forster in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above, and Matsumoto remains silent on further comprising analyzing a downstream effect of a chokepoint.
Xu teaches further comprising analyzing a downstream effect of a chokepoint. See at least [0063]-[0065] and figure 4, step S105, wherein a downstream ratio is calculated, representing the dangerous slowdown value of road segments downstream to the current road segment having a DSD event.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Matsumoto with Xu’s technique of analyzing a downstream effect of a chokepoint. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables efficient and immediate detection of dangerous slowdown events at specific locations in a road network, as recognized by Xu (see at least [0002]-[0004]).
Regarding Claim 8, Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, and Forster in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 7 as discussed above, and Matsumoto remains silent on further comprising analyzing an upstream effect of a chokepoint.
Xu teaches further comprising analyzing an upstream effect of a chokepoint. See at least [0063]-[0065] and figure 4, step S105, wherein an upstream ratio is calculated, representing the dangerous slowdown value of road segments upstream to the current road segment having a DSD event.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Matsumoto with Xu’s technique of analyzing an upstream effect of a chokepoint. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables efficient and immediate detection of dangerous slowdown events at specific locations in a road network, as recognized by Xu (see at least [0002]-[0004]).
Regarding Claim 14, Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, and Forster in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above, and Matsumoto remains silent on wherein the plurality of chokepoints are identified through simulation at least in part. See at least [0084]-[0086] and figure 4, steps 404-406, wherein a graph representation, or simulation, of the environment is generated from road data, with particular nodes representing blockage points removed. Additionally, see at least [0067]-[0075], wherein the process of determining connectivities can involve virtual nodes and edges in the graph, which, by virtue of being virtual, inherently must be simulated.
Regarding Claim 23, Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, and Forster in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above, and Matsumoto additionally teaches identifying alternative connectivity sites that increase connectivity of the plurality of map areas. See at least [0010]-[0011], wherein potential blockage points are identified to be cleared up, providing an alternative node to the choke points. Additionally, see at least [0080]-[0082] and figure 3, wherein an alternative route is provided to avoid choke points between the southwestern map area to the northeastern map area.
Claims 2-5, 13, 15-16, 20-21, 25, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, and Forster as applied to claims above, and further in view of CN 112598305 A, published 04/02/2021, hereinafter “Zhong”.
Regarding Claim 2, Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, and Forster in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above, and Matsumoto remains silent on further comprising monitoring the plurality of chokepoints, and detecting changes to the corresponding connectivity of at least one of the plurality of chokepoints.
Xu teaches further comprising monitoring the plurality of chokepoints. See at least [0071] and figure 5, wherein road segments with dangerous slowdown events (DSD), or choke points, is provided to module 45 so vehicles can monitor the areas with DSD events and adjust their driving strategy.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Matsumoto with Xu’s technique of monitoring the chokepoint. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables efficient and immediate detection of dangerous slowdown events at specific locations in a road network, as recognized by Xu (see at least [0002]-[0004]).
Zhong teaches and detecting changes to the corresponding connectivity of at least one of the plurality of chokepoints. See at least [0023]-[0028], wherein a connectivity index is determined when analyzing the removal of each node in the road network. In combination with Matsumoto’s and Xu’s teachings, discussed above, of identifying chokepoints by iterating and removing each node in the lane network, this limitation is taught in its entirety. Additionally, see at least [0033] and [0088], wherein the node connectivity analysis is used to dynamically monitor specific nodes, and see at least [0002], wherein the analysis includes detecting changes in traffic or other environmental conditions.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Matsumoto with Zhong’s technique of determining changes to a connectivity to a road network node. It would have been obvious because doing so enables identification of important nodes in road networks, allowing for prediction and prevention of traffic congestion, as recognized by Zhong (see at least [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 3, Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, Forster, and Zhong in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above, and Matsumoto additionally teaches wherein the monitoring includes creating a polygon at each of the plurality of points. See at least [0024], wherein a polygon is created representing a blockage point for each blockage point.
Matsumoto teaches creating a polygon representing a blockage points. However, Matsumoto remains silent on the specifics of the polygon being created at the chokepoint. Nevertheless, applying any simple substitution to apply the polygon creating to chokepoints as well as blockage points would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known methods for representing a point in the environment, as shown by Matsumoto. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said substitution, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have substituted the polygon creation for choke points rather than blockage points to achieve the predictable result of representing a specific point in the environment.
Regarding Claim 4, Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, Forster, and Zhong in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above, and Matsumoto remains silent on wherein software tooling is used to perform the monitoring in real-time.
Xu teaches wherein software tooling is used to perform the monitoring in real-time. See at least [0071] and figure 5, wherein road segments with dangerous slowdown events (DSD), or choke points, is provided to module 45 so vehicles can monitor the areas with DSD events and adjust their driving strategy. Additionally, see at least [0133], wherein the disclosed methods are performed by software programs. See at least [0031], [0080], and [0099], wherein the data used for analysis is provided in real time.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Matsumoto with Xu’s technique of using software tooling to monitor. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables efficient and immediate detection of dangerous slowdown events at specific locations in a road network, as recognized by Xu (see at least [0002]-[0004]).
Regarding Claim 5, Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, Forster, and Zhong in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above, and Matsumoto remains silent on wherein the monitoring includes iterating over each lane within the polygon.
Xu teaches wherein the monitoring includes iterating over each lane within the polygon. See at least [0060], [0067], and figure 4, step S104, wherein the analysis iterates through a list of road segments within a specific subset of road segments. In combination with Matsumoto’s teaching, discussed above, of performing analysis on lane segments in a service area, this limitation is taught in its entirety. Additionally, see at least [0061], wherein the current road segment already has a DSD or chokepoint value. Therefore, the method of figure 4 is performed not only to identify new choke points, but to monitor and reassess existing choke points.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Matsumoto with Xu’s technique of monitoring by iterating over each segment within a group of segments. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables efficient and immediate detection of dangerous slowdown events at specific locations in a road network, as recognized by Xu (see at least [0002]-[0004]).
Regarding Claim 13, Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, and Forster in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above, and Matsumoto remains silent on wherein determining the corresponding connectivity includes evaluating an effect on one or more other lane segments by the simulated removal.
Zhong teaches wherein determining the corresponding connectivity includes evaluating an effect on one or more other lane segments by the simulated removal. See at least [0023]-[0028], wherein a connectivity index is determined when analyzing the removal of each node in the road network.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Matsumoto with Zhong’s technique of evaluating the effect on one or more other lane segments by the removal. It would have been obvious because doing so enables identification of important nodes in road networks, allowing for prediction and prevention of traffic congestion, as recognized by Zhong (see at least [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 15, Matsumoto teaches a system for preventing service disruption in a service area. See at least [0083] and figure 4.
comprising: a fleet of autonomous vehicle navigating within the service area. See at least [0057], wherein the choke point identification system 100 monitors service areas for a fleet of autonomous vehicles.
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory. See at least [0096]-[0098], wherein the processes disclosed are performed by a memory and a processor coupled together.
the at least one processor configured to: simulate removal of the lane segment from the plurality of lane segments in the service area. See at least [0084]-[0086] and figure 4, steps 404-406, wherein a graph representation, or simulation, of the environment is generated from road data, with particular nodes representing blockage points removed. See at least [0033] and [0046], wherein the graph simulation is generated by removing nodes in the graph that represent blockage points. See at least [0030] and [0075]-[0076], wherein nodes of the graph represent lanes of a road network. See at least [0057], wherein the road data used to generate the graph represents a service area of a fleet of autonomous vehicles. Additionally, see at least [0067]-[0075], wherein the process of removing nodes and determining connectivity can involve virtual nodes and edges in the graph, which, by virtue of being virtual, inherently must be simulated.
determine, based on the simulated removal of the lane segment, a corresponding connectivity based on removing the lane segment, wherein the corresponding connectivity represents whether the simulated removal of the lane segment would impact travel to or from the service area. See at least [0087]-[0088] and figure 4, step 408, wherein the graph is analyzed based on the removed nodes, for example by determining a minimum cut of the graph. See at least [0087]-[0088] and figure 4, step 408, wherein the graph is analyzed based on the removed absent nodes, for example by determining a minimum cut of the graph. See at least [0036]-[0038], wherein the minimum cut of the graph identifies one or more edges in the service area where removal of the edges would cause one area of the service area to be unreachable from the rest of the service area.
identify a plurality of chokepoints from the plurality of lane segments in the service area, wherein each chokepoint is identified based on the corresponding connectivities, and wherein a chokepoint represents a lane segment that, if actually unavailable, would render at least a first portion of the service area inaccessible from a second portion of the service area. See at least [0087]-[0089 and figure 4, step 410, wherein one or more choke points is identified based on the minimum cut. See at least [0035], [0039]-[0040], [0044], [0060], and [0069], wherein multiple minimum cuts, or connectivities, are calculated. Each minimum cut corresponds to a different pair of locations, sets of locations, or regions in the environment. See at least [0036]-[0038], wherein the minimum cut of the graph identifies one or more edges in the service area where removal of the edges would cause one area of the service area to be unreachable from the rest of the service area.
segment the service area into a plurality of map areas, wherein each map area is connected by one or more chokepoints of the plurality of chokepoints; See at least [0040]-[0043], [0050]-[0054], and figure 2B, wherein the environment, or map area, is divided into multiple regions, are chokepoints are identified between the regions.
identify a fragile map area of the plurality of map area, the fragile map area connected to a remainder of the ODD by one or more chokepoints of the plurality of chokepoints. See at least [0053]-[0057], wherein connectivity is identified for different regions of the service area, and data is calculated for the regions, comprising the number of choke points between a region and every other region. This number quantifies regions that are at high risk of being isolated, or cut off. The isolated, or fragile, regions are connected to the rest of the environment by one or more of the identified chokepoints.
wherein the one or more chokepoints are preemptively given an impassable condition based on the corresponding connectivities of the one or more chokepoints. See at least [0010]-[0012] and [0080]-[0082], wherein vehicles are preemptively instructed to not pass through identified chokepoint 304 in order to prevent traffic congestion.
Matsumoto remains silent on for each lane segment of a plurality of lane segments in the service area, for each lane segment, based on iterating through the plurality of lane segments in the service area. As discussed above, Matsumoto teaches performing the method steps for all lane segments corresponding to known blockage points, but not the plurality of lane segments in the service area. Additionally, Matsumoto remains silent on an operational design domain and segmenting the map area based on the plurality of chokepoints. As discussed above, Matsumoto teaches segmenting the map area first, and then identifying chokepoints between the segmented map areas. Matsumoto finally remains silent on monitor the plurality of chokepoints over a period of time, and instructing one or more autonomous vehicles present in the fragile map area to self-evict.
Xu teaches for each lane segment of a plurality of lane segments in the service area, for each lane segment, based on iterating through the plurality of lane segments in the service area. See at least [0060], [0067], and figure 4, step S104, wherein the analysis iterates through a list of road segments to identify points with slowdown events, or choke points. In combination with Matsumoto’s teaching, discussed above, of performing analysis on lane segments in a service area, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
segmenting the map area based on the plurality of chokepoints. See at least [0071]-[0073], wherein the slowdown events, or chokepoints, are used to separate dangerous areas to create a geofence.
monitor the plurality of chokepoints. See at least [0071] and figure 5, wherein road segments with dangerous slowdown events (DSD), or choke points, is provided to module 45 so vehicles can monitor the areas with DSD events and adjust their driving strategy.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Matsumoto with Xu’s technique of iterating through road segments. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables efficient and immediate detection of dangerous slowdown events at specific locations in a road network, as recognized by Xu (see at least [0002]-[0004]).
Nakirikanti teaches instructing one or more autonomous vehicles present in the fragile map area to self-evict. See at least [0062] and [0116], wherein instructions are provided to an autonomous vehicle which cause the vehicle to leave a particular area of the service area.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Matsumoto with Nakirikanti’s technique of instructing vehicles to leave an area of the service area. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables more optimal resource utilization for transportation service providers, as recognized by Nakirikanti (see at least [0007]-[0012]).
Forster teaches an operational design domain. See at least [0052], wherein the vehicle capability data 110 includes geofence data 132 representing a service area of an autonomous vehicle, wherein the vehicle capability data 110 is derived from operational design domain (ODD) data.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Matsumoto with Forster’s operational design domain. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables routing engines to appropriately consider vehicle capabilities when coping with roadway conditions, allowing for routing engines to be adapted to a wide variety of different vehicle types, as recognized by Forster (see at least [0020]-[0038]).
Zhong monitoring over a period of time. See at least [0049]-[0051] and [0096]-[0097], wherein traffic flow on the key nodes of the road network are monitored for a time period of one hour.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Matsumoto with Zhong’s technique of using a simulator and monitoring over a period of time. It would have been obvious because doing so enables identification of important nodes in road networks, allowing for prediction and prevention of traffic congestion, as recognized by Zhong (see at least [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 16, Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, Forster, and Zhong in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 15 as discussed above, and Matsumoto remains silent on wherein the at least one processor is also configured to analyze downstream effects.
Xu teaches wherein the at least one processor is also configured to analyze downstream effects. See at least [0063]-[0065] and figure 4, step S105, wherein a downstream ratio is calculated, representing the dangerous slowdown value of road segments downstream to the current road segment having a DSD event.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Matsumoto with Xu’s technique of analyzing a downstream effect of a chokepoint. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables efficient and immediate detection of dangerous slowdown events at specific locations in a road network, as recognized by Xu (see at least [0002]-[0004]).
Regarding Claim 20, Matsumoto teaches a method for preventing service disruption in a service area. See at least [0083] and figure 4.
comprising: identifying a plurality of chokepoints in the service area, wherein a chokepoint represents a lane segment that, if actually unavailable, would render at least a first portion of the service area inaccessible from a second portion of the service area. See at least [0087]-[0089 and figure 4, step 410, wherein one or more choke points is identified based on the minimum cut. See at least [0035], [0039]-[0040], [0044], [0060], and [0069], wherein multiple minimum cuts, or connectivities, are calculated. Each minimum cut corresponds to a different pair of locations, sets of locations, or regions in the environment. See at least [0036]-[0038], wherein the minimum cut of the graph identifies one or more edges in the service area where removal of the edges would cause one area of the service area to be unreachable from the rest of the service area.
wherein the connectivity represents a lane segment that if available would enable travel to or from the service area; See at least [0035], [0039]-[0040], [0044], [0060], and [0069], wherein multiple minimum cuts, or connectivities, are calculated. Each minimum cut corresponds to a different pair of locations, sets of locations, or regions in the environment. See at least [0036]-[0038], wherein the minimum cut of the graph identifies one or more edges in the service area where removal of the edges would cause one area of the service area to be unreachable from the rest of the service area.
segmenting the service area into a plurality of map areas, wherein each map area is connected by one or more chokepoints of the plurality of chokepoints; See at least [0040]-[0043], [0050]-[0054], and figure 2B, wherein the environment, or map area, is divided into multiple regions, are chokepoints are identified between the regions.
identifying a fragile map area of the plurality of map area, the fragile map area connected to a remainder of the ODD by one or more chokepoints of the plurality of chokepoints. See at least [0053]-[0057], wherein connectivity is identified for different regions of the service area, and data is calculated for the regions, comprising the number of choke points between a region and every other region. This number quantifies regions that are at high risk of being isolated, or cut off. The isolated, or fragile, regions are connected to the rest of the environment by one or more of the identified chokepoints.
wherein the one or more chokepoints is preemptively given an impassable condition based on the determined connectivity of the one or more chokepoints. See at least [0010]-[0012] and [0080]-[0082], wherein vehicles are preemptively instructed to not pass through identified chokepoint 304 in order to prevent traffic congestion.
Matsumoto remains silent on determining a connectivity around each of the plurality of chokepoints in the service area. Additionally, Matsumoto remains silent on an operational design domain and segmenting the map area based on the plurality of chokepoints. As discussed above, Matsumoto teaches segmenting the map area first, and then identifying chokepoints between the segmented map areas. Matsumoto finally remains silent on monitoring the plurality of chokepoints, and instructing one or more autonomous vehicles present in the fragile map area to self-evict.
Xu teaches monitoring the plurality of chokepoints. See at least [0071] and figure 5, wherein road segments with dangerous slowdown events (DSD), or choke points, is provided to module 45 so vehicles can monitor the areas with DSD events and adjust their driving strategy.
segmenting the map area based on the plurality of chokepoints. See at least [0071]-[0073], wherein the slowdown events, or chokepoints, are used to separate dangerous areas to create a geofence.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Matsumoto with Xu’s technique of iterating through road segments. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables efficient and immediate detection of dangerous slowdown events at specific locations in a road network, as recognized by Xu (see at least [0002]-[0004]).
Nakirikanti teaches instructing one or more autonomous vehicles present in the fragile map area to self-evict. See at least [0062] and [0116], wherein instructions are provided to an autonomous vehicle which cause the vehicle to leave a particular area of the service area.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Matsumoto with Nakirikanti’s technique of instructing vehicles to leave an area of the service area. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables more optimal resource utilization for transportation service providers, as recognized by Nakirikanti (see at least [0007]-[0012]).
Forster teaches an operational design domain. See at least [0052], wherein the vehicle capability data 110 includes geofence data 132 representing a service area of an autonomous vehicle, wherein the vehicle capability data 110 is derived from operational design domain (ODD) data.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Matsumoto with Forster’s operational design domain. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables routing engines to appropriately consider vehicle capabilities when coping with roadway conditions, allowing for routing engines to be adapted to a wide variety of different vehicle types, as recognized by Forster (see at least [0020]-[0038]).
Zhong teaches determining a connectivity around each of the plurality of chokepoints in the service area. See at least [0023]-[0028], wherein a connectivity index is determined when analyzing the removal of each node in the road network. In combination with Matsumoto’s and Xu’s teachings, discussed above, of identifying chokepoints by iterating and removing each node in the lane network, this limitation is taught in its entirety.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Matsumoto with Zhong’s technique of determining a connectivity to a road network node. It would have been obvious because doing so enables identification of important nodes in road networks, allowing for prediction and prevention of traffic congestion, as recognized by Zhong (see at least [0002]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 21, Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, Forster, and Zhong in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above, and Matsumoto remains silent on wherein the detected change to the connectivity is due to an autonomous vehicle limitation.
Forster teaches wherein the detected change to the connectivity is due to an autonomous vehicle limitation. See at least [0019]-[0121], wherein changes to the connectivity of the routing graph are due to limitations places on the autonomous vehicle, such as business policies, roadway condition constraints, or vehicle capabilities.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Matsumoto with Forster’s change in connectivity based on autonomous vehicle limitations. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables routing engines to appropriately consider vehicle capabilities when coping with roadway conditions, allowing for routing engines to be adapted to a wide variety of different vehicle types, as recognized by Forster (see at least [0020]-[0038]).
Regarding Claim 25, Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, Forster, and Zhong in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 20 as discussed above, and Matsumoto additionally teaches identifying alternative connectivity sites that increase connectivity of the plurality of map areas. See at least [0010]-[0011], wherein potential blockage points are identified to be cleared up, providing an alternative node to the choke points. Additionally, see at least [0080]-[0082] and figure 3, wherein an alternative route is provided to avoid choke points between the southwestern map area to the northeastern map area.
Regarding Claim 27, Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, Forster, and Zhong in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 20 as discussed above, and Matsumoto remains silent on removing one or more lanes from the ODD that feed into the fragile map area.
Forster teaches removing one or more lanes from the ODD that feed into the fragile map area. See at least [0049], wherein constraints are applied to the routing graph by removing graph elements that lead into map areas. For example, if the constraint is to avoid map areas corresponding to cul-de-sacs, then cul-de-sacs are removed from the routing graph along with road segments that feed into cul-de-sacs. Additionally, see at least [0025], wherein the roadway elements include lane segments.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Matsumoto with Forster’s technique of removing graph elements, including lane segments, that feed into map areas to be avoided. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables routing engines to appropriately consider vehicle capabilities when coping with roadway conditions, allowing for routing engines to be adapted to a wide variety of different vehicle types, as recognized by Forster (see at least [0020]-[0038]).
Regarding Claim 28, Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, Forster, and Zhong in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 20 as discussed above, and Matsumoto remains silent on wherein the detected change to the connectivity is due to an autonomous vehicle limitation.
Forster teaches wherein the detected change to the connectivity is due to an autonomous vehicle limitation. See at least [0019]-[0121], wherein changes to the connectivity of the routing graph are due to limitations places on the autonomous vehicle, such as business policies, roadway condition constraints, or vehicle capabilities.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Matsumoto with Forster’s change in connectivity based on autonomous vehicle limitations. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables routing engines to appropriately consider vehicle capabilities when coping with roadway conditions, allowing for routing engines to be adapted to a wide variety of different vehicle types, as recognized by Forster (see at least [0020]-[0038]).
Claims 22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, Forster, and Zhong as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20200272949 A1, filed 09/17/2019, hereinafter “Chen”.
Regarding Claim 22, Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, and Forster in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above, and Matsumoto remains silent on wherein the instructing the one or more autonomous vehicles present in the fragile map area to self-evict includes instructing to: determine whether the one or more autonomous vehicles is occupied; and complete a customer trip based on determining that the one or more autonomous vehicles is occupied.
Nakirikanti teaches wherein the instructing one or more autonomous vehicles present in the fragile map area to self-evict includes instructing to: complete a customer trip. See at least [0062] and [0116], wherein instructions are provided to an autonomous vehicle which cause the vehicle to leave a particular area of the service area and take an alternate way to complete the route of the vehicle. Additionally, see at least [0007], wherein the vehicle provides transportation services.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Matsumoto with Nakirikanti’s technique of instructing vehicles to leave an area of the service area. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables more optimal resource utilization for transportation service providers, as recognized by Nakirikanti (see at least [0007]-[0012]).
Chen teaches determine whether the one or more autonomous vehicles is occupied; based on determining that the one or more autonomous vehicles is occupied. See at least [0057], wherein data indicative of the state of the vehicle and its passengers is acquired, and see at least [0096], wherein certain tasks are performed based on status checks identifying whether the vehicle is occupied or unoccupied.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Matsumoto with Chen’s technique of determining if the vehicle is occupied, and performing tasks based on determining that the one or more autonomous vehicles is occupied. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables autonomous vehicles providing transportation services to effectively and efficiently request remote assistance, as recognized by Chen (see at least [0003]-[0008]).
Regarding Claim 24, Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, and Forster in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above, and Matsumoto remains silent on proactively engaging remote assistance for the one or more autonomous vehicles.
Chen teaches proactively engaging remote assistance for the one or more autonomous vehicles. See at least [0099], [0106]-[0109], [0119], and [0120]-[0125], wherein the autonomous vehicle proactively requests remote assistance.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Matsumoto with Chen’s technique of proactively engaging remote assistance. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables autonomous vehicles providing transportation services to effectively and efficiently request remote assistance, as recognized by Chen (see at least [0003]-[0008]).
Regarding Claim 26, Matsumoto, Xu, Nakirikanti, Forster, and Zhong in combination teach all of the limitations of Claim 25 as discussed above, and Matsumoto remains silent on proactively engaging remote assistance for the one or more autonomous vehicles.
Chen teaches proactively engaging remote assistance for the one or more autonomous vehicles. See at least [0099], [0106]-[0109], [0119], and [0120]-[0125], wherein the autonomous vehicle proactively requests remote assistance.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Matsumoto with Chen’s technique of proactively engaging remote assistance. It would have been obvious to modify because doing so enables autonomous vehicles providing transportation services to effectively and efficiently request remote assistance, as recognized by Chen (see at least [0003]-[0008]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Selena M. Jin whose telephone number is (408)918-7588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/S.M.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667