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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yanagihara et al. (20200164872; hereinafter Yanagihara, already of record) in view of Kim (20200133274; already of record) fail to teach of aggregating the determined one or more paths to generate a bounding path. Additionally, Applicant argues that Yanagihara in view of Kim fails to teach of storing data associated with the generated virtual lane in a map database.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the aggregating, the previous Office Action of record cites Yanagihara:
“the route determiner 53 determines a route (hereinafter referred to as a route on a map)” ¶ 38
“The recommended lane determiner 61 divides the route on the map provided from the navigation device 50 into a plurality of blocks ... and determines a recommended lane for each block with reference to the second map information 62” ¶ 39
“the target trajectory is represented by sequentially arranging points (trajectory points) at which the host vehicle M is required to arrive. The trajectory point is a point where the host vehicle M is required to reach for each prescribed traveling distance (for example, about several meters [m]) along a road” ¶ 48
Wherein it can be seen that the argued division of Yanagihara relates to determining a plurality of paths relates to determined one or more paths and the aggregating is carried out afterwards to generate a bounding path. Therefore, Yanagihara does disclose of determining one or more paths of the vehicle and then aggregating the plurality of paths to generate a bounding path. Further, as Yanagihara discloses the system for generating the bounding path, Kim is utilized to modify the system of Yanagihara to further include a first boundary and a second boundary that define a respective left and right extremities of the bounding path, and not to teach of the aggregating.
In regards to storing the generated virtual lane in a map database, the prior Office Action of record relies on Yanagihara to disclose of storing the generated virtual lane. This can be seen in the previously recited paragraph 39. Additionally, Yanagihara paragraph 51 further described the storing of data related to the generated virtual lane.
Therefore, claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected over Yanagihara in view of Kim. Additionally, claim 9 is rejected over Yanagihara in view of Kim in further view of Movert et al. (20190176846; hereinafter Movert, already of record) and claim 10 is rejected over Yanagihara in view of Kim in further view of Wengreen et al. (20200247357; hereinafter Wengreen, already of record).
The previously presented detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagihara et al. (20200164872; hereinafter Yanagihara, already of record) in view of Kim (20200133274; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Yanagihara teaches a system for virtual lane generation for a vehicle, the system comprising (Yanagihara: Abstract):
at least one non-transitory memory configured to store computer-executable instructions (Yanagihara: “The program may be pre-stored in a storage device such as an HDD or a flash memory of the automated driving control device 100 (a storage device including a non-transitory storage medium)” ¶ 42); and
at least one processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to (Yanagihara: “Each of the first controller 120 and the second controller 160 is implemented, for example, by a hardware processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) executing a program (software)” ¶ 42):
determine one or more paths associated with a lane pair of the vehicle (Yanagihara: “the route determiner 53 determines a route (hereinafter referred to as a route on a map)” ¶ 38), wherein the lane pair corresponds to an ingress lane and an egress lane associated with a traffic signal intersection (Yanagihara: “The recommended lane determiner 61 determines what number lane the vehicle travels on from the left. The recommended lane determiner 61 determines the recommended lane so that the host vehicle M can travel along a reasonable traveling route for traveling to a branching destination when there is a branching point in the route on the map” ¶ 39);
aggregate the determined one or more paths corresponding to the lane pair, to generate a bounding path associated with the lane pair (Yanagihara: “The recommended lane determiner 61 divides the route on the map provided from the navigation device 50 into a plurality of blocks ... and determines a recommended lane for each block with reference to the second map information 62” ¶ 39, see also “the target trajectory is represented by sequentially arranging points (trajectory points) at which the host vehicle M is required to arrive. The trajectory point is a point where the host vehicle M is required to reach for each prescribed traveling distance (for example, about several meters [m]) along a road” ¶ 48), wherein the bounding path comprises a first boundary and a second boundary that define respective left and right extremities of the bounding path (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Kim) within which the vehicle may travel between the lane pair (Yanagihara: “the recognizer 130 recognizes the travel lane by comparing a pattern of a road dividing line (for example, an arrangement of solid lines and broken lines) obtained from the second map information 62 with a pattern of road dividing lines in the vicinity of the host vehicle M” ¶ 45);
generate a virtual lane based on the generated bounding path, wherein the generation of the virtual lane is based on determination of a plurality of lane shape points corresponding to the generated bounding path (Yanagihara: “divides the route on the map provided from the navigation device 50 into a plurality of blocks” ¶ 39, “target trajectory is represented by sequentially arranging points (trajectory points)” ¶ 48);
store data associated with the generated virtual lane in a map database (Yanagihara: “the MPU 60 includes a recommended lane determiner 61 and stores second map information 62 in a storage device” ¶ 39); and
control an autonomous driving of the vehicle or another vehicle through the traffic signal intersection based on the stored data associated with the generated virtual lane (Yanagihara: “The action plan generator 140 includes an intersection passage controller 142 to be activated when the intersection passage event is executed” ¶ 49, “The acquirer 162 acquires information of a target trajectory (a trajectory point) generated by the action plan generator 140 and causes the acquired information to be stored in a memory (not shown). The speed controller 164 controls the travel driving force output device 200 or the brake device 210 on the basis of speed elements associated with the target trajectory stored in the memory. The steering controller 166 controls the steering device 220 in accordance with a curvature representing a degree of curve of a target trajectory stored in the memory” ¶ 51) by verifying that the vehicle is maintaining a trajectory within the generated virtual lane based on sensor data collected from the vehicle (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Kim).
While Yanagihara remains silent regarding a first boundary and a second boundary that define respective left and right extremities of the bounding path ... verifying that the vehicle is maintaining a trajectory within the generated virtual lane based on sensor data collected from the vehicle, in a similar field of endeavor, Kim teaches the claim limitation of a first boundary and a second boundary that define a respective left and right extremities of the bounding path and verifying that the vehicle maintains trajectory within the virtual lane (Kim: “The driving lane line may be determined according to a boundary determined on the left side and right side with respect to the vehicle. Therefore, when the virtual driving path is determined, the vehicle travels along the virtual driving path so as not to deviate from the boundary defined left and right” ¶ 64, “the first boundary A, the second boundary B, and the third boundary C among the plurality of virtual driving paths are compared with each other and a virtual driving path having the boundary closest to the vehicle 1 may be determined as the actual driving path” ¶ 89). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the virtual lane system of Yanagihara so that it also includes the element of left and right extremities and verifying the vehicle is maintaining a trajectory within the virtual lane, as taught by Kim, in order to improve autonomous vehicle navigation (Kim: ¶ 89, 90, 94).
Regarding claim 2, Yanagihara in view of Kim teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
identify the traffic signal intersection (Yanagihara: “an intersection state recognizer 132” ¶ 47);
retrieve signal phase and timing (SPaT) data and map data associated with the identified traffic signal intersection (Yanagihara: “on the basis of a state of a traffic signal and the like” ¶ 47, “the intersection state recognizer 132 compares a route on a map or a recommended route with the second map information 62 and recognizes that the host vehicle M is scheduled to turn right or left at the intersection ... the intersection state recognizer 132 selects a traffic signal (hereinafter referred to as a traffic signal to be selected) whose state is required to be taken into account by the host vehicle M” ¶ 55);
determine the lane pair based on the retrieved SPaT data (Yanagihara: “the first intersection CR5 through which the host vehicle M first passes between ... and is an area where a traffic signal is expected to be provided in correspondence with a second road Rd4 intersecting a first road Rd3 on which the host vehicle M travels” ¶ 84) and the map data (Yanagihara: “In the second map information 62, information indicating that there is a complex intersection is described” ¶ 83);
retrieve historical sensor data associated with one or more vehicles passed through the determined lane pair (Yanagihara: “Referring to an operation history of another vehicle, the other vehicle is entering the intersection CR4 regardless of the state of the traffic signal Sg9” ¶ 81); and
perform map matching of the retrieved historical sensor data and the determined lane pair to determine the one or more paths associated with the lane pair of the vehicle (Yanagihara: “The intersection passage controller 142 generates a target trajectory on the basis of the state of the signal selected as the traffic signal to be selected by the intersection state recognizer 132” ¶ 86, see also ¶ 43, Note: Wherein the above citations refer to the conditions retrieved to be used in this performing step).
Regarding claim 3, Yanagihara in view of Kim teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the generation of the virtual lane is further based on a determination of a lane curvature associated with the generated bounding path (Yanagihara: Fig. 3 Element TK, Fig. 4 Element TK, “the steering controller 166 controls the steering device 220 in accordance with a curvature representing a degree of curve of a target trajectory” ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 4, Yanagihara in view of Kim teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the generated bounding path further comprises a first boundary and a second boundary, and wherein each lane shape point of the plurality of lane shape points determined on the first boundary corresponds to a lane shape point of the plurality of lane shape points determined on the second boundary of the generated bounding path (Yanagihara: “The recommended lane determiner 61 divides the route on the map provided from the navigation device 50 into a plurality of blocks (for example, divides the route every 100 [m] with respect to a traveling direction of the vehicle), and determines a recommended lane for each block with reference to the second map information 62” ¶ 39).
Regarding claim 5, Yanagihara in view of Kim teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each lane shape point of the plurality of lane shape points corresponds to a latitude, a longitude, and an altitude (Yanagihara: “The GNSS receiver 51 identifies a position of the host vehicle M on the basis of a signal received from a GNSS satellite” ¶ 38).
Regarding claim 6, Yanagihara in view of Kim teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
transmit the data associated with the generated virtual lane to the vehicle (Yanagihara: “the second controller 160 includes, for example, an acquirer 162, a speed controller 164, and a steering controller 166. The acquirer 162 acquires information of a target trajectory (a trajectory point)” ¶ 51);
retrieve sensor data associated with the vehicle (Yanagihara: “executes feed-forward control according to the curvature of the road in front of the host vehicle M and feedback control based on a deviation from the target trajectory” ¶ 51); and
utilize the data associated with the generated virtual lane and the retrieved sensor data for maintenance of a trajectory of the vehicle within the generated virtual lane (Yanagihara: “The speed controller 164 controls the travel driving force output device 200 or the brake device 210 on the basis of speed elements associated with the target trajectory stored in the memory. The steering controller 166 controls the steering device 220 in accordance with a curvature representing a degree of curve of a target trajectory stored in the memory” ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 7, Yanagihara in view of Kim teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the retrieved sensor data is associated with at least one of: a camera, a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) system, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) system, or a global positioning system (GPS) (Yanagihara: “the vehicle system 1 includes a camera 10, a radar device 12, a finder 14, a physical object recognition device 16, a communication device 20, a human machine interface (HMI) 30, a vehicle sensor 40, a navigation device 50, a map positioning unit (MPU) 60” ¶ 30).
Regarding claim 8, Yanagihara in view of Kim teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a trajectory of the vehicle travelling between the lane pair (Yanagihara: “the second controller 160 includes, for example, an acquirer 162, a speed controller 164, and a steering controller 166. The acquirer 162 acquires information of a target trajectory (a trajectory point)” ¶ 51);
compare the determined trajectory of the vehicle with a predefined threshold associated with the generated virtual lane (Yanagihara: “processes of the speed controller 164 and the steering controller 166 are implemented by a combination of feed-forward control and feedback control” ¶ 51); and
verify the determined trajectory of the vehicle to be within the generated virtual lane, based on the comparison (Yanagihara: “combines and executes feed-forward control according to the curvature of the road in front of the host vehicle M and feedback control based on a deviation from the target trajectory” ¶ 51).
In regards to claim(s) 11 and 20, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 1, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
In regards to claim(s) 12-19, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 2-8, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagihara in view of Kim, as applied to claims 1-8 and 11-20 above, in further view of Movert et al. (20190176846; hereinafter Movert, already of record).
Regarding claim 9, Yanagihara in view of Kim teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
detect an abnormal trajectory of the vehicle (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Movert), based on a determination that the determined trajectory of the vehicle is outside the predefined threshold associated with the generated virtual lane (Yanagihara: “the steering controller 166 combines and executes feed-forward control according to the curvature of the road in front of the host vehicle M and feedback control based on a deviation from the target trajectory” ¶ 51); and
generate a notification based on the detected abnormal trajectory of the vehicle (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Movert).
While Yanagihara in view of Kim remains silent regarding detect an abnormal trajectory of the vehicle ... generate a notification based on the detected abnormal trajectory of the vehicle, in a similar field of endeavor, Movert teaches the claim limitation of detecting an abnormal trajectory and generating a notification based on the abnormal trajectory (Movert: “If the control unit 52 determines that the actual driving path deviates from the plurality of expected near future driving paths ... the control unit 52 is configured to provide an alert signal to a driver assist system” ¶ 58). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the control system of Yanagihara so that it also includes the element of generating an alert in response to abnormal trajectory, as taught by Movert, in order to improve vehicle safety (Movert: ¶ 58).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagihara in view of Kim, as applied to claims 1-8 and 11-20 above, in further view of Wengreen et al. (20200247357; hereinafter Wengreen, already of record).
Regarding claim 10, Yanagihara in view of Kim teaches the system of claim 1, the one or more processor is further configured to update map data (Yanagihara: “the intersection state recognizer 132 compares a route on a map or a recommended route with the second map information 62 and recognizes that the host vehicle M is scheduled to turn right or left at the intersection” ¶ 55) to prevent vehicles from changing modes at the traffic signal intersection (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Wengreen).
While Yanagihara remains silent regarding prevent vehicles from changing modes at the traffic signal intersection, in a similar field of endeavor, Wengreen teaches the claim limitation of preventing vehicles from changing modes at the intersection (Wengreen: “the first program instructions 27 can be configured to prevent the first self-driving vehicle 5a from turning at intersections. Instead, the first self-driving vehicle 5a would keep going along the road” ¶ 261, see also ¶ 262, Note: Wherein turning can be considered a mode, i.e., a turning mode during vehicle navigation). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the control system of Yanagihara so that it also includes the element of preventing the vehicle from changing modes at an intersection, as taught by Wengreen, in order to improve vehicle navigation safety (Wengreen: ¶ 264).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gwin et al. (20190126921) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of virtual lane generation.
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 CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights