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 Non-Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 2-3, 5-8, and 10-23 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claims 4 and 9 have been cancelled.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the objection of the specification as set forth in the office action of 21 August 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection to the specification as set forth in the office action of 21 August 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 15 and 23 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 21 August 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 15 and 23 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 21 August 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 2-3, 5-8, and 10-23 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 21 August 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charrow (US 20180259957 A1) in view of Kozak (US 20200283012 A1) in view of Takae (US 20180222423 A1) in view of Marden (US 20190135290 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Charrow teaches An autonomous vehicle comprising (see at least [¶029 & 036]):
one or more sensors (see at least [¶045]);
one or more processors (see at least [¶029 & 036]);
and non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (see at least [¶029-030]):
receiving map data associated with an environment (Receiving map information associated with the environment the vehicle will be traveling on. see at least [¶038-041]),
wherein at least a first portion of the autonomous vehicle is positioned, along a longitudinal direction, in a first lane represented in the map data, the first lane associated with a first width along a lateral direction (A portion of the autonomous vehicle along a longitudinal direction is located in the first lane represented in the map data, with that first lane being associated with a first width along the lateral direction. see at least [¶043, 053-054, 066-067 & FIG 11-12]);
receiving, from the one or more sensors, sensor data associated with the environment (Receiving from sensors, data associated with the environment. see at least [¶045, 048-049, 053-054 & 071]);
Charrow does not explicitly teach determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a signal indicative of a presence of a second portion of the autonomous vehicle in a second lane represented in the map data, the second lane being associated with a second width along the lateral direction, different from the first width.
However, Kozak does teach does teach determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a signal indicative of a presence of a second portion of the autonomous vehicle in a second lane represented in the map data, (Determining based on sensor data, that a portion of the autonomous vehicle is in a second lane/path. The lane/path information can come from a map database. see at least [¶038, 040, 053-055, 057, 059 and Fig 1]);
the second lane being associated with a second width along the lateral direction, different from the first width (The second lane is associated with a width along a lateral direction that can be a smaller width than the first lane. see at least [¶039, 049 and Fig 1]).
Kozak would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle control and bike lanes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow to use the technique of determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a signal indicative of a presence of a second portion of the autonomous vehicle in a second lane represented in the map data, the second lane being associated with a second width along the lateral direction, different from the first width as taught by Kozak. Doing so would lead to reducing the risk of an accident when moving a vehicle into a bike lane/path (see at least [¶057]).
Charrow and Kozak do not explicitly teach determining, based on the signal or the map data, that an unoccupied portion of the second lane along the lateral direction is less than a threshold: determining, based on the unoccupied portion of the second lane being less than the threshold, a classification of established lane to the second lane.
However, Takae does teach determining, based on the signal or the map data, that an unoccupied portion of the second lane along the lateral direction is less than a threshold (Determining based on the signal, that an unoccupied portion of a second lane along the lateral direction is less than a threshold/range. A vehicle or construction could be occupying a portion of the second lane. see at least [¶053-054, 057-060, 072 & FIG 6D]);
determining, based on the unoccupied portion of the second lane being less than the threshold, a classification of established lane to the second lane (Determining, based on the unoccupied portion of the second lane being less than a threshold/range, a classification that the second lane is established/unavailable for use. see at least [¶053-054, 057-060, 072 & FIG 6D]).
Takae would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of assisting a vehicle in lane changes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow and Kozak to use the technique of determining, based on the signal or the map data, that an unoccupied portion of the second lane along the lateral direction is less than a threshold: determining, based on the unoccupied portion of the second lane being less than the threshold, a classification of established lane to the second lane as taught by Takae. Doing so would lead to improved determination of performing a lane change safely (see at least [¶053]).
Charrow, Kozak and Takae do not explicitly teach and controlling the autonomous vehicle based at least in part on the classification of the second lane.
However, Marden does teach and controlling the autonomous vehicle based at least in part on the classification of the second lane (The autonomous vehicle is controlled based on the classification/status of the second/adjacent lane. see at least [¶070-072]).
Marden would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle lane changes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow, Kozak and Takae to use the technique of controlling the autonomous vehicle based at least in part on the classification of the second lane as taught by Marden. Doing so would lead to improving safety when performing lane changes (see at least [¶038]).
Regarding Claim 6, Charrow, Kozak, Takae and Marden teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as shown above, furthermore, Marden teaches wherein the second lane is associated with a designation, in the map data, of one of: a bike lane, a parking lane, a turning lane, or a bus lane (The second lane can be designated as a bike lane, parking lane, or a turning/wide lane. see at least [¶041 & 065-067]).
Marden would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle lane changes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow, Kozak and Takae to use the technique of having the second lane is associated with a designation, in the map data, of one of: a bike lane, a parking lane, a turning lane, or a bus lane as taught by Marden. Doing so would lead to improving safety when performing lane changes into different types of lanes (see at least [¶038]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charrow (US 20180259957 A1) in view of Kozak (US 20200283012 A1) in view of Takae (US 20180222423 A1) in view of Marden (US 20190135290 A1) in further view of Mere (US 20160187879 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Charrow, Kozak, Takae and Marden teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as shown above, Charrow, Kozak, Takae and Marden do not explicitly teach wherein determining the signal is based at least in part on at least one of: a position of a bumper of the autonomous vehicle; a bounding box associated with the autonomous vehicle relative to the second lane; an area associated with the autonomous vehicle.
However, Mere does teach wherein determining the signal is based at least in part on at least one of: a position of a bumper of the autonomous vehicle; a bounding box associated with the autonomous vehicle relative to the second lane; an area associated with the autonomous vehicle (Determining the signal of where the autonomous vehicle is located from the position of the bumper of the autonomous vehicle. see at least [¶034]).
Mere would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle positioning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to Charrow, Kozak, Takae and Marden to use the technique of determining the signal is based at least in part on at least one of: a position of a bumper of the autonomous vehicle as taught by Mere. Doing so would lead to improving alerts for distracted vehicle users (see at least [¶037]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charrow (US 20180259957 A1) in view of Kozak (US 20200283012 A1) in view of Takae (US 20180222423 A1) in view of Marden (US 20190135290 A1) in further view of Herbach (US 9523984 B1).
Regarding Claim 5, Charrow, Kozak, Takae and Marden teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as shown above, Charrow, Kozak, Takae and Marden do not explicitly teach determining, based at least in part on the first width and the second width, a drivable surface associated with the autonomous vehicle wherein at least a left side or a right side of the drivable surface overlaps with the second lane, and wherein controlling the autonomous vehicle is based at least in part on the drivable surface.
However, Herbach does teach determining, based at least in part on the first width and the second width, a drivable surface associated with the autonomous vehicle wherein at least a left side or a right side of the drivable surface overlaps with the second lane (Determining based on lanes with different widths, a drivable surface for an autonomous vehicle, where the drivable surface overlaps either a right or left side of a second lane. see at least [Column 18, Lines 1-67, Column 19, Line 1-6 and Fig 4A]),
and wherein controlling the autonomous vehicle is based at least in part on the drivable surface (Controlling the vehicle to allow it to pass through the drivable surface. see at least [Column 18, Lines 1-67, Column 19, Line 1-6 and Fig 4A]).
Herbach would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle control and use of multiple lanes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow, Kozak, Takae and Marden to use the technique of determining, based at least in part on the first width and the second width, a drivable surface associated with the autonomous vehicle wherein at least a left side or a right side of the drivable surface overlaps with the second lane, and wherein controlling the autonomous vehicle is based at least in part on the drivable surface as taught by Herbach. Doing so would lead to improving the safety of an autonomous vehicle pulling over in an emergency (see at least [Column 18, Lines 1-14]).
Claims 7, 13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charrow (US 20180259957 A1) in view of Marden (US 20190135290 A1) in further view of Takae (US 20180222423 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Charrow teaches A method comprising (see at least [¶04, 029 & 036]):
receiving map data associated with an environment within which a vehicle is positioned (Receiving map information associated with the environment the vehicle will be traveling on. see at least [¶05, 038-041 & 053]),
wherein the vehicle is at least partially positioned, along a longitudinal direction, in a first lane of the map data, the first lane associated with a first width along a lateral direction (A portion of the autonomous vehicle along a longitudinal direction is located in the first lane represented in the map data, with that first lane being associated with a first width along the lateral direction. see at least [¶043, 053-054, 066-067 & FIG 11-12]);
determining, based at least in part on the map data, a second lane of the environment adjacent to the first lane, the second lane associated with a second width, along the lateral direction different from the first width (Determining, based in part on the map data, a second lane that is adjacent to the first lane, with the second lane having a different width along the lateral direction that is different from the first width. see at least [¶066-067 & FIG 11-12]);
Charrow does not explicitly teach determining a signal indicative of a presence of the vehicle relative to the second lane; and controlling the vehicle based at least in part on the classification.
However, Marden does teach determining a signal indicative of a presence of the vehicle relative to the second lane (Determining based on sensor data, that a portion of the autonomous vehicle is in a second lane that is represented by the map data. see at least [¶020, 059-060 & 070-072]);
and controlling the vehicle based at least in part on the classification (The autonomous vehicle is controlled based on the classification/status of the second/adjacent lane. see at least [¶070-072]).
Marden would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle lane changes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow to use the technique of determining a signal indicative of a presence of the vehicle relative to the second lane; and controlling the vehicle based at least in part on the classification as taught by Marden. Doing so would lead to improving safety when performing lane changes (see at least [¶038]).
Charrow and Marden do not explicitly teach determining, based on the signal or the map data, that an unoccupied portion of the second lane along the lateral direction is less than a threshold: determining, based on the unoccupied portion of the second lane being less than the threshold, a classification of established lane to the second lane.
However, Takae does teach determining, based on the signal or the map data, that an unoccupied portion of the second lane along the lateral direction is less than a threshold (Determining based on the signal, that an unoccupied portion of a second lane along the lateral direction is less than a threshold/range. A vehicle or construction could be occupying a portion of the second lane. see at least [¶053-054, 057-060, 072 & FIG 6D]);
determining, based on the unoccupied portion of the second lane being less than the threshold, a classification of established lane to the second lane (Determining, based on the unoccupied portion of the second lane being less than a threshold/range, a classification that the second lane is established/unavailable for use. see at least [¶053-054, 057-060, 072 & FIG 6D]).
Takae would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of assisting a vehicle in lane changes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow and Marden to use the technique of determining, based on the signal or the map data, that an unoccupied portion of the second lane along the lateral direction is less than a threshold: determining, based on the unoccupied portion of the second lane being less than the threshold, a classification of established lane to the second lane as taught by Takae. Doing so would lead to improved determination of performing a lane change safely (see at least [¶053]).
Regarding Claim 13, Charrow, Marden and Takae teach all of the limitations of claim 7 as shown above, furthermore, Marden teaches wherein the classification is a first classification, the method further comprising: determining a second classification associated with the first lane, wherein controlling the vehicle comprises causing the vehicle to perform an abort action to prevent the vehicle from merging into the second lane based at least in part on the first classification and the second classification (Lanes can be classified to either allow or prevent a lane change. When the second/target lane is classified as being established for another vehicle, the lane change/merging is aborted for the autonomous vehicle. see at least [¶035, 058-061 & 065-069]).
Marden would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle lane changes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow and Takae to use the technique of having the classification is a first classification, the method further comprising: determining a second classification associated with the first lane, wherein controlling the vehicle comprises causing the vehicle to perform an abort action to prevent the vehicle from merging into the second lane based at least in part on the first classification and the second classification as taught by Marden. Doing so would lead to improving safety when performing lane changes (see at least [¶038]).
Regarding Claim 17, Charrow teaches One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (see at least [¶029-030]):
receiving map data associated with an environment within which a vehicle is positioned (Receiving map information associated with the environment the vehicle will be traveling on. see at least [¶05, 038-041 & 053]),
wherein at least a first portion of the vehicle is positioned, along a longitudinal direction, in a first lane of the map data, the first lane associated with a first width along a lateral direction (A portion of the autonomous vehicle along a longitudinal direction is located in the first lane represented in the map data, with that first lane being associated with a first width along the lateral direction. see at least [¶043, 053-054, 066-067 & FIG 11-12]);
Charrow does not explicitly teach determining a signal indicative of a presence of a second portion of the vehicle in a second lane, the second lane being associated with a second width along the lateral direction, different from the first width; determining, based at least in part on the signal or the map data, a classification of the second lane; and controlling the vehicle based at least in part on the classification of the second lane.
However, Marden does teach determining a signal indicative of a presence of a second portion of the vehicle in a second lane, the second lane being associated with a second width along the lateral direction, different from the first width (Determining based on sensor data, that a portion of the autonomous vehicle is in a second lane that is represented by the map data. The second lane can be a bike lane which would have a different width along the lateral direction and is different from the first lane width. see at least [¶020, 059-060 & 070-072]);
and controlling the vehicle based at least in part on the classification of the second lane (The autonomous vehicle is controlled based on the classification/status of the second/adjacent lane. see at least [¶070-072]).
Marden would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle lane changes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow to use the technique of determining a signal indicative of a presence of a second portion of the vehicle in a second lane, the second lane being associated with a second width along the lateral direction, different from the first width; determining, based at least in part on the signal or the map data, a classification of the second lane; and controlling the vehicle based at least in part on the classification of the second lane as taught by Marden. Doing so would lead to improving safety when performing lane changes (see at least [¶038]).
Charrow and Marden do not explicitly teach determining, based on the signal or the map data, that an unoccupied portion of the second lane along the lateral direction is less than a threshold: determining, based on the unoccupied portion of the second lane being less than the threshold, a classification of established lane to the second lane.
However, Takae does teach determining, based on the signal or the map data, that an unoccupied portion of the second lane along the lateral direction is less than a threshold (Determining based on the signal, that an unoccupied portion of a second lane along the lateral direction is less than a threshold/range. A vehicle or construction could be occupying a portion of the second lane. see at least [¶053-054, 057-060, 072 & FIG 6D]);
determining, based on the unoccupied portion of the second lane being less than the threshold, a classification of established lane to the second lane (Determining, based on the unoccupied portion of the second lane being less than a threshold/range, a classification that the second lane is established/unavailable for use. see at least [¶053-054, 057-060, 072 & FIG 6D]).
Takae would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of assisting a vehicle in lane changes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow and Marden to use the technique of determining, based on the signal or the map data, that an unoccupied portion of the second lane along the lateral direction is less than a threshold: determining, based on the unoccupied portion of the second lane being less than the threshold, a classification of established lane to the second lane as taught by Takae. Doing so would lead to improved determination of performing a lane change safely (see at least [¶053]).
Regarding Claim 18, Charrow, Marden and Takae teach all of the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, furthermore, Marden teaches wherein the second lane is associated with a designation, in the map data, of one of: a bike lane, a parking lane, a turning lane, or a bus lane (The second lane can be designated as a bike lane, parking lane, or a turning/wide lane. see at least [¶041 & 065-067]).
Marden would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle lane changes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow and Takae to use the technique of having the second lane is associated with a designation, in the map data, of one of: a bike lane, a parking lane, a turning lane, or a bus lane as taught by Marden. Doing so would lead to improving safety when performing lane changes into different types of lanes (see at least [¶038]).
Claims 8, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charrow (US 20180259957 A1) in view of Marden (US 20190135290 A1) in view of Takae (US 20180222423 A1) in further view of Im (US 20190004529 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Charrow, Marden and Takae teach all of the limitations of claim 7 as shown above, Charrow, Marden and Takae do not explicitly teach wherein the classification of established lane is indicative of the vehicle having priority over other objects in the established lane, and the classification further comprises: occupied lane, indicating that the vehicle occupies at least some portion of the occupied lane, or unoccupied lane, indicating that a portion of the vehicle does not occupy at the unoccupied lane.
However, Im does teach wherein the classification of established lane is indicative of the vehicle having priority over other objects in the established lane, and the classification further comprises: occupied lane, indicating that the vehicle occupies at least some portion of the occupied lane, or unoccupied lane, indicating that a portion of the vehicle does not occupy at the unoccupied lane (A lane being unavailable for a lane change means the lane is classified as established for a vehicle and that vehicle has priority over the lane. A lane can be occupied by a vehicle or it can be unoccupied. see at least [¶048, 052, 057, 059, 073-075 and FIG 4]).
Im would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle lane changes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow, Marden and Takae to use the technique of having the classification of established lane is indicative of the vehicle having priority over other objects in the established lane, and the classification further comprises: occupied lane, indicating that the vehicle occupies at least some portion of the occupied lane, or unoccupied lane, indicating that a portion of the vehicle does not occupy at the unoccupied lane as taught by Im. Doing so would lead to improving safety when performing lane changes (see at least [¶030]).
Regarding Claim 10, Charrow, Marden, Takae and Im teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as shown above, furthermore, Im teaches determining the classification comprises: determining, based at least in part on the signal or the map data, that a portion of the vehicle that occupies the second lane meets or exceeds a threshold, wherein determining the classification of the second lane is the established lane is further based on determining that the portion meets or exceeds the threshold (A lane is classified based on input from the onboard autonomous vehicle sensors. A lane being unavailable for a lane change means the lane is classified as established for a vehicle as it occupies a lane past a desired threshold. see at least [¶031-032, 048, 052, 057, 059, 073-075 and FIG 4]).
Im would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle lane changes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow, Marden and Takae to use the technique of determining the classification comprises: determining, based at least in part on the signal or the map data, that a portion of the vehicle that occupies the second lane meets or exceeds a threshold, wherein determining the classification of the second lane is the established lane is further based on determining that the portion meets or exceeds the threshold as taught by Im. Doing so would lead to improving safety when performing lane changes (see at least [¶030]).
Regarding Claim 20, Charrow, Marden and Takae teach all of the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, Charrow, Marden and Takae do not explicitly teach wherein the threshold is a first threshold, and the classification is further based on one or more of: determining, that the second portion meets or exceeds a second threshold; or determining a lateral velocity of the vehicle towards the second lane meets or exceeds a third threshold.
However, Im does teach wherein the threshold is a first threshold, and the classification is further based on one or more of: determining, that the second portion meets or exceeds a second threshold; or determining a lateral velocity of the vehicle towards the second lane meets or exceeds a third threshold (A lane is classified based multiple threshold values as being established/unavailable or available for a lane change. The threshold can include a distance/occupied threshold and a speed/velocity threshold of a lateral vehicle. see at least [¶031-032, 048, 052, 057, 059, 073-077 and FIG 4]).
Im would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle lane changes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow, Marden and Takae to use the technique of having the threshold is a first threshold, and the classification is further based on one or more of: determining, that the second portion meets or exceeds a second threshold; or determining a lateral velocity of the vehicle towards the second lane meets or exceeds a third threshold as taught by Im. Doing so would lead to improving safety when performing lane changes (see at least [¶030]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charrow (US 20180259957 A1) in view of Marden (US 20190135290 A1) in further view of Takae (US 20180222423 A1) in further view of Herbach (US 9523984 B1).
Regarding Claim 11, Charrow, Marden and Takae teach all of the limitations of claim 7 as shown above, Charrow, Marden and Takae do not explicitly teach receiving an indication that a third lane is not classified as established; and based at least in part receiving an indication that the third lane is not classified as established, performing an analysis to determine (i) that an object occupies at least a threshold portion of the third lane and (ii) that the vehicle merging into the third lane is predicted to negatively affect the object.
However, Herbach does teach receiving an indication that a third lane is not classified as established (The system can determine that a third lane is not established as no vehicle is currently present to interfere with the autonomous vehicle moving into the lane from a plurality of lane options. see at least [Column 18-19, Lines 1-67 & Lines 1-6]);
and based at least in part receiving an indication that the third lane is not classified as established, performing an analysis to determine (i) that an object occupies at least a threshold portion of the third lane and (ii) that the vehicle merging into the third lane is predicted to negatively affect the object (After determining that the third lane is not established, the vehicle system can continue analyzing the third lane to determine that an object/vehicle is occupying a threshold portion of the lane and thus a lane change from the autonomous vehicle would be unsafe (should be aborted). see at least [Column 18-19, Lines 1-67 & Lines 1-6]).
Herbach would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle control and use of multiple lanes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow, Marden and Takae to use the technique of receiving an indication that a third lane is not classified as established; and based at least in part receiving an indication that the third lane is not classified as established, performing an analysis to determine (i) that an object occupies at least a threshold portion of the third lane and (ii) that the vehicle merging into the third lane is predicted to negatively affect the object as taught by Herbach. Doing so would lead to improving the safety of an autonomous vehicle pulling over in an emergency (see at least [Column 18, Lines 1-14]).
Regarding Claim 12, Charrow, Marden, Takae and Herbach teach all of the limitations of claim 11 as shown above, furthermore, Herbach teaches receiving an additional indication that the third lane is classified as established; and terminating the analysis based at least in part on the additional indication (The vehicle system can determine that the third lane is an established lane when an object/vehicle is present in the lane and thus stops analyzing the lane as a potential lane to move the autonomous vehicle into. see at least [Column 18-19, Lines 1-67 & Lines 1-6]).
Herbach would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle control and use of multiple lanes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow, Marden and Takae to use the technique of receiving an additional indication that the third lane is classified as established; and terminating the analysis based at least in part on the additional indication as taught by Herbach. Doing so would lead to improving the safety of an autonomous vehicle pulling over in an emergency (see at least [Column 18, Lines 1-14]).
Claims 14-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charrow (US 20180259957 A1) in view of Marden (US 20190135290 A1) in view of Takae (US 20180222423 A1) in further view of Delp (US 20200012286 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Charrow, Marden and Takae teach all of the limitations of claim 7 as shown above, Charrow, Marden and Takae do not explicitly teach wherein controlling the vehicle comprises causing the vehicle to merge at least partially into the second lane, the method further comprising: determining, based at least in part on the signal and the map data, a driving corridor associated with the vehicle, wherein: at least a left side or a right side of the drivable surface overlaps with the second lane, and a third width of the driving corridor is reduced by a fourth width.
However, Delp does teach wherein controlling the vehicle comprises causing the vehicle to merge at least partially into the second lane (Controlling the autonomous vehicle to merge partially into a second lane. see at least [¶029-030 & 035-038]),
the method further comprising: determining, based at least in part on the signal and the map data, a driving corridor associated with the vehicle, wherein at least a left side or a right side of the drivable surface overlaps with the second lane and a third width of the driving corridor is reduced by a fourth width (The drivable surface can be determined from sensor and map data. The driving surface can include overlaps of a second lane with a width being reduced in one side where the cyclist is present and the width is increased on the second lane. see at least [¶029-031, 035-038 & FIG 3A]).
Delp would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle control in overtaking scenarios. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow, Marden and Takae to use the technique of controlling the vehicle comprises causing the vehicle to merge at least partially into the second lane, the method further comprising: determining, based at least in part on the signal and the map data, a driving corridor associated with the vehicle, wherein: at least a left side or a right side of the drivable surface overlaps with the second lane, and a third width of the driving corridor is reduced by a fourth width as taught by Delp. Doing so would lead to improving safety when passing cyclist (see at least [¶047]).
Regarding Claim 15, Charrow, Marden, Takae and Delp teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as shown above, furthermore, Delp teaches wherein the fourth width is based at least in part on a width of the vehicle and a predetermined margin (The size of the drivable surface/trajectories can be reduced on one side using the size of the vehicle and a predetermined/safety distance margin. see at least [¶029-031, 035-038 & FIG 3A]).
Delp would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle control in overtaking scenarios. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow, Marden and Takae to use the technique of the fourth width is based at least in part on a width of the vehicle and a predetermined margin as taught by Delp. Doing so would lead to improving safety when passing cyclist (see at least [¶047]).
Regarding Claim 16, Charrow, Marden, Takae and Delp teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as shown above, furthermore, Delp teaches determining that an object occupies at least a portion of the second lane (Determining that an object/vehicle occupies a second lane. see at least [¶029-031, 035-038 & FIG 3A]);
and modifying the left side or the right side of the driving corridor based based on determining that the object occupies at least the portion of the second lane (Modifying the driving surface by reducing the portion of the second lane. When a vehicle is in the second lane, the driving surface in the second lane is reduced completely. see at least [¶029-031, 035-038 & FIG 3A]).
Delp would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle control in overtaking scenarios. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow, Marden and Takae to use the technique of determining that an object occupies at least a portion of the second lane and modifying the left side or the right side of the driving corridor based on determining that the object occupies at least the portion of the second lane as taught by Delp. Doing so would lead to improving safety when passing cyclist (see at least [¶047]).
Regarding Claim 21, Charrow, Marden and Takae teach all of the limitations of claim 20 as shown above, Charrow, Marden and Takae do not explicitly teach receiving an indication that the second lane is not classified as established; and determining, based at least in part on the indication, a drivable surface overlapping of the first lane and the second lane.
Delp teaches receiving an indication that the second lane is not classified as established (Determining that an object/vehicle does not occupy the second lane and thus the lane is not established/available for use. see at least [¶029-031, 035-038 & FIG 3A]);
and determining, based at least in part on the indication, a drivable surface overlapping of the first lane and the second lane (Determining the driving area, which includes a portion of the first lane and a portion of the second lane (overlapping both lanes), from the classification of the second lane. see at least [¶029-031, 035-038 & FIG 3A]).
Delp would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle control in overtaking scenarios. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow, Marden and Takae to use the technique of receiving an indication that the second lane is not classified as established; and determining, based at least in part on the indication, a drivable surface overlapping of the first lane and the second lane as taught by Delp. Doing so would lead to improving safety when passing cyclist (see at least [¶047]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charrow (US 20180259957 A1) in view of Marden (US 20190135290 A1) in view of Takae (US 20180222423 A1) in further view of Mere (US 20160187879 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Charrow, Marden and Takae teach all of the limitations of claim 17 as shown above, Charrow, Marden and Takae do not explicitly teach wherein determining the signal is based at least in part on at least one of: a position of a bumper of the autonomous vehicle; a bounding box associated with the autonomous vehicle relative to the second lane; an area associated with the autonomous vehicle.
However, Mere does teach wherein determining the signal is based at least in part on at least one of: a position of a bumper of the autonomous vehicle; a bounding box associated with the autonomous vehicle relative to the second lane; an area associated with the autonomous vehicle (Determining the signal of where the autonomous vehicle is located from the position of the bumper of the autonomous vehicle. see at least [¶034]).
Mere would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle positioning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow, Marden and Takae to use the technique of determining the signal is based at least in part on at least one of: a position of a bumper of the autonomous vehicle as taught by Mere. Doing so would lead to improving alerts for distracted vehicle users (see at least [¶037]).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charrow (US 20180259957 A1) in view of Kozak (US 20200283012 A1) in view of Takae (US 20180222423 A1) in view of Marden (US 20190135290 A1) in further view of Delp (US 20200012286 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Charrow, Kozak, Takae and Marden teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as shown above, Charrow, Kozak, Takae and Marden do not explicitly teach determining, based on the signal and the map data, a driving corridor associated with the autonomous vehicle, wherein: a first side of the driving corridor overlaps with the second lane, and a third width of the driving corridor is reduced by a fourth width on a second side, opposite the first side, wherein controlling the autonomous vehicle is based at least in part on the driving corridor.
However, Delp does teach determining, based on the signal and the map data, a driving corridor associated with the autonomous vehicle, wherein: a first side of the driving corridor overlaps with the second lane, and a third width of the driving corridor is reduced by a fourth width on a second side, opposite the first side (The drivable surface can be determined from sensor and map data. The driving surface can include overlaps of a second lane with a width being reduced in one side where the cyclist is present and the width is increased on the second lane. see at least [¶029-031, 035-038 & FIG 3A]),
wherein controlling the autonomous vehicle is based at least in part on the driving corridor (Controlling the autonomous vehicle to merge partially into a second lane. see at least [¶029-030 & 035-038]).
Delp would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle control in overtaking scenarios. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow, Kozak, Takae and Marden to use the technique of determining, based on the signal and the map data, a driving corridor associated with the autonomous vehicle, wherein: a first side of the driving corridor overlaps with the second lane, and a third width of the driving corridor is reduced by a fourth width on a second side, opposite the first side, wherein controlling the autonomous vehicle is based at least in part on the driving corridor as taught by Delp. Doing so would lead to improving safety when passing cyclist (see at least [¶047]).
Regarding Claim 23, Charrow, Kozak, Takae, Marden and Delp teach all of the limitations of claim 22 as shown above, furthermore Delp teaches wherein the fourth width is based on at least one of: the second width, or a width of the autonomous vehicle and a predetermined margin (The driving surface can include overlaps of a second lane with a width being reduced in one side where the cyclist is present and the width is increased on the second lane. The width increased on the first lane can be based on the width of the vehicle as seen in the figure. see at least [¶029-031, 035-038 & FIG 3A]).
Delp would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of autonomous vehicle control in overtaking scenarios. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Charrow, Kozak, Takae and Marden to use the technique of having the fourth width is based on at least one of: the second width, or a width of the autonomous vehicle and a predetermined margin as taught by Delp. Doing so would lead to improving safety when passing cyclist (see at least [¶047]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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 on (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 866-2
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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667