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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
Claims 1-10, 11-18, and 21-22 are pending. Claims 1, 11 and 21 are the independent claims. Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15, and 18 have been amended. Claim 19 is cancelled. Claim 20 had been previously cancelled. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 01/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 01/30/2026; “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to claim 1, applicant argued, on Page 9 of Remarks, that the cited paragraph of Jung ([0088]) for the rejection of the “road information” in final office action filed on 09/30/2025, describing as “road shoulder, roadside zone, …”, is not associated with the estimated path of the target vehicle, rather, is associated with the host vehicle for taking avoidance actions. Further, applicant argued that Jung is silent about the road information being a ramp section. However, the argument is not, respectfully, persuasive. Claim 1 recites: “the road information comprises information related to at least one of a link segmentation, an entry section, a ramp section, or road properties”, therefore a ramp section is one of the alternatives including in the recited “road information”. Therefore, although Jung is silent about a ramp section, however, Jung teaches the road information associated with the target vehicle. For example, according to paragraph [0115], Jung discloses the map area information where the emergency vehicle is present, or as another example, according to paragraph [0132], Jung discloses detecting the number of road branches which reads on the link segmentations as part of the road information. Therefore, although examiner agrees that Jung is not explicitly teach/suggest a ramp section in road information, however, other road information associated with the target vehicle has been taught by Jung.
Furthermore, applicant has amended claim 1, to include the limitation of “based on the road information and based on whether the ramp section is located on the estimated path, whether the target vehicle is anticipated to merge onto a route of the host vehicle;”. However, the newly added limitation in the claim as written rendered the claim indefinite (See rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) in the non-final office action below). Further, the newly added limitation in amended claim 1, has changed the scope of the claim, therefore, new ground of rejection has been applied (See non-final office action below).
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the below Office Action.
It is the Office’ stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “wherein the road information comprises information related to at least one of a link segmentation, an entry section, a ramp section, or road properties”, and further it recites “determine, based on the road information and based on whether the ramp section is located on the estimated path,”. It is unclear whether the ramp section is included in the road information because the aforementioned limitation of “wherein the road information comprises…” is written in alternative language with term “at least one of…” as underlined above. Therefore, it is unclear if all the aforementioned road information includes ramp section and since the next recited limitation of “determine…based on whether the ramp section is located on the estimated path” requires the ramp information, therefore the claim as recited with alternative language is indefinite. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim is not clear because if the ramp information is not included in the road information, the next limitation will render the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-10 and 12-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) as being dependent on indefinite claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 11-12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al, US 20230129168 A1, hereinafter “Jung”, in view of Foster et al., US20220348227, hereinafter “Foster”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Jung discloses a device and method for controlling a host vehicle, (Abstract, “A controller for a vehicle capable of autonomous driving”, Para [0002], [0088], “A control device […] referred to as an “autonomous driving controller”), the device comprising: a sensor for obtaining sound associated with a target vehicle; ([0089], “The detection of the emergency vehicle is performed by, for example, acquiring sound information detected by a plurality of microphones included in the vehicle”) and a controller configured to: determine, based on the sound associated with the target vehicle, an estimated path of the target vehicle; (e.g., [0021], “controller”, “predicted traveling route of the emergency vehicle”, [0022]-0023], [0115], “the detection result may include [] a predicted traveling route of the emergency vehicle”, [0117], “calculate the detection reliability based on the feature of the information of the emergency vehicle”, “the feature of the information of the emergency vehicle is, for example, a detection frequency of a siren sound in acoustic recognition, […]”),determine, based on a map of an area associated with the host vehicle, road information associated with the estimated path of the target vehicle; ([0090], “the position and direction of the emergency vehicle on the map,”, [0105], “map information”), wherein the road information comprises information related to at least one of a link segmentation, an entry section, a ramp section, or road properties ([0115], “the detection result may include area information on a map where the emergency vehicle is present, []. The one or more processors 120 use the map information to calculate such information of the emergency vehicle.”, [0004], “estimating an orientation of an emergency vehicle by [], identifying a part of a roadway on which the emergency vehicle is traveling by comparing the estimated orientation with map information” , [0108], [0132], “the number of road branches”, __Note: at least, according the cited paragraphs, Jung teaches road information as for example a part of roadway on which the emergency vehicle is traveling or the number of road branches which read on the road information as recited in the claim__); determine, based on the road information and ([0115], “area information on a map where the emergency vehicle is present”, [0088], “The interference determination is to determine whether or not the predicted traveling route of the emergency vehicle interfere with the traveling route of the autonomous driving.” and based on a determination that the target vehicle is anticipated to merge onto the route of the host vehicle, cause the host vehicle to take an evasive action. ([0088], [0090]).
Jung doesn’t explicitly disclose or suggest determine, based on the road information and based on whether the ramp section is located on the estimated path, whether the target vehicle is anticipated to merge onto a route of the host vehicle;
However, Foster discloses systems and methods for operating an autonomous vehicle appropriately on public roads, highways, and locations with other vehicles or pedestrians (Foster, see at least Abstract and paragraph [0002]) and teaches localizing an emergency vehicle to determine if it is approaching an autonomous vehicle based on the direction and loudness of the siren of the emergency vehicle (See at least Foster, paragraph [1097]-[1108]) and teaches wherein the road information comprises information related to at least one of a link segmentation, an entry section, a ramp section, or road properties (at least paragraph [1146], [1148]) and determine based on the road information and based on whether the ramp section is located on the estimated path, whether the target vehicle is anticipated to merge onto a route of the host vehicle (Foster, [1648], “An autonomous vehicle may navigate K-ramp accept merge-in scenarios using a model to predict whether the vehicle on the K-ramp will merge into autonomous vehicle's lane.”, [1651], also see, for example, paragraphs [0056], [0165], “An ELV on a ramp section of a highway may require a first type of behavior,”, [0166], “when the ELV is in a location that is not a ramp section,”, [0228], “For example, an autonomous vehicle may slow down and bias may be used together except for onramp scenarios and scenarios in which the autonomous vehicle determines that the ELV is merging in and intends to cut behind,”, [0246], __Note: According to at least cited paragraphs, Foster teaches determining if an emergency vehicle or any other vehicle (NPC) is on a ramp section and approaching the autonomous vehicle and based on that it takes an appropriate action/behavior which reads on the claimed limitation__)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the control device for the detecting an emergency/target vehicle based on the associated sound, predicting the route of the emergency vehicle and determining if the emergency vehicle is merging to the path of the host vehicle by using road map information and taking evasive action by the host vehicle to impede collision as taught by Jung to further explicitly include the map information including ramp section information as taught by Foster, and anticipating, based on if the predicted path of the target vehicle is located on a ramp section, whether the target vehicle would merge onto the path of the host vehicle as also further taught by Foster, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the accuracy of the estimation of the route of an emergency vehicle by considering the road information and respective controlling action of the host vehicle in response to the determination/estimation of the route of emergency vehicle. This improves the autonomous vehicle’s safety and reliability.
Regarding claim 2 and 12, Jung teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine the estimated path based on the host vehicle being in an ignition on state or a power on state. (e.g., [0115], “calculating position and direction of the emergency vehicle”, [0117], [0088] "the control device ... has a function of detecting an emergency vehicle traveling around the vehicle and causing the vehicle to take an avoidance action", __taking an avoidance action by vehicle is feasible when the vehicle is in ignition on or power on state, therefore this reads on the claimed limitation__)
Regarding claim 5 and 15, modified Jung teaches the device and method of claims 1 and 11, however, Jung doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to determine that the target vehicle is anticipated to merge onto the route of the host vehicle based on a determination that: a direction of the estimated path of the target vehicle and a moving direction of the host vehicle are different from each other, the estimated path of the target vehicle approaches the host vehicle, a road corresponding to the estimated path of the target vehicle comprises the ramp section, and a curvature of the estimated path of the target vehicle, according to the map, matches a curvature of the road corresponding to the estimated path of the target vehicle.
However, Foster teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine that the target vehicle is anticipated to merge onto the route of the host vehicle based on a determination that: a direction of the estimated path of the target vehicle and a moving direction of the host vehicle are different from each other, the estimated path of the target vehicle approaches the host vehicle, a road corresponding to the estimated path of the target vehicle comprises the ramp section, and a curvature of the estimated path of the target vehicle, according to the map, matches a curvature of the road corresponding to the estimated path of the target vehicle ([1632], “An autonomous vehicle may monitor the speed and velocity of all vehicles on ramps that may arrive at the earliest merge point within a pre-determined number of seconds or a pre-determined amount of curvature”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the control device for the detecting an emergency/target vehicle based on the associated sound, predicting the route of the emergency vehicle by analyzing the sound track to detect if the emergency vehicle is traveling on a curved ramp heading toward the host vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the accuracy of the anticipation whether the emergency vehicle is heading toward the host vehicle.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Foster, further in view of Arunachalam, US 20190027032, hereinafter “Arunachalam”, and Herman et al., US 10755691 B1, hereinafter “Herman”.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Jung in view of Foster discloses the device of claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1) and the method of claim 11 (See rejection of claim 11), and Jung teaches a second target vehicle as recited in the claim, according to at least paragraph [0108] of Jung “prediction of traveling routes of the surrounding vehicles”, which suggests determining the estimated path of more than one vehicle that meets the limitation for second target vehicle as recited in the claim, however, Jung in view of prior arts relied upon doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to determine that a
a direction of an estimated path of the second target vehicle and a moving direction of the host vehicle are different from each other, the estimated path of the second target vehicle is approaching the host vehicle,
and the estimated path of the second target vehicle is, according to the map, located on an overpass.
Nevertheless, Arunachalam teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine that a vehicle is approaching the host vehicle (at least [0028], “estimating a direction of movement of the siren sound source. []. The changes in instantaneous location of the siren sound source may be compared to known paths of travel (e.g., roadways) in the location of the emergency vehicle in order to determine an estimated trajectory of the emergency vehicle.”, [0029], “determining if the siren sound source is located in an actionable region. An actionable region may include a [] region from which the siren sound source may travel (e.g., according to a database of roadways) in the determined direction of movement to reach the vehicle.”, [0030], “When the siren sound source is not located in an actionable region (and/or when the siren sound source is not traveling toward the vehicle or traveling on an intersecting path with the vehicle, e.g., “NO” at 222)”, Fig. 1 “vehicle 104f is approaching the emergency vehicle 102 in a different direction”),
And, Further, Herman teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine that a second target vehicle is not anticipated to merge onto the route of the host vehicle based the determination that the estimated path of the second target vehicle is, according to the map, located on an overpass. (US 10755691 B1, Herman et al, Para 25 -page 10 Col 6 line 15-39, “a train may travel upon an overpass bridge. Further, the overpass bridge may be identified based on map information. The disclosed systems may determine that there can be no vehicle and train interaction due to the height difference between the routes of the train and the vehicle. In such a case, the vehicle may determine not to present audio or related information to the driver/passengers in the vehicle and thus, to not include train sounds in the presented audio to the driver and/or passengers of the vehicle.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the control device as taught by Jung in view of prior arts relied upon. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include the steps of determining that a target vehicle is not anticipated to merge onto the host vehicle’s route based on the sound direction relative to the host vehicle, as taught by Arunachalam, and further determining if the path is located on an overpass, as taught by Herman. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so to improve the performance of the control device by detecting the location and direction of the emergency vehicles in the surrounding environment of the host vehicle and anticipating if the path of any of the emergency vehicles merge into the path of the host vehicle based on the direction and location of the emergency vehicle. This enhances the safety, reliability and trustworthiness of the autonomous driving. Furthermore, it would have been to one ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the process to detect different sounds associated with multiple vehicles and estimate their respective path, as also taught by Jung, to account for the presence of more than one target vehicle in the host vehicle’s vicinity.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Foster, further in view of Arunachalam, and Paudel et al., US 20200348687 A1, hereinafter “Paudel”.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Jung in view of Foster discloses the device of claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1) and the method of claim 11 (See rejection of claim 11), and Jung teaches a second target vehicle as recited in the claim, according to at least paragraph [0108] of Jung “prediction of traveling routes of the surrounding vehicles” which suggests determining the estimated path of more than one vehicle that meets the limitation for second target vehicle as recited in the claim, however, Jung in view of prior arts relied upon doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to determine that a
a direction of an estimated path of the second target vehicle and a moving direction of the host vehicle are different from each other, the estimated path of the second target vehicle is approaching the host vehicle,
and a road corresponding to the estimated path of the second target vehicle, according to the map, lacks the ramp section.
Nevertheless, Arunachalam teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine that a (at least [0028], “estimating a direction of movement of the siren sound source. []. The changes in instantaneous location of the siren sound source may be compared to known paths of travel (e.g., roadways) in the location of the emergency vehicle in order to determine an estimated trajectory of the emergency vehicle.”, [0029], “determining if the siren sound source is located in an actionable region. An actionable region may include a [] region from which the siren sound source may travel (e.g., according to a database of roadways) in the determined direction of movement to reach the vehicle.”, [0030], “When the siren sound source is not located in an actionable region (and/or when the siren sound source is not traveling toward the vehicle or traveling on an intersecting path with the vehicle, e.g., “NO” at 222)”, __ as shown in Fig. 1, vehicle 104f is approaching the emergency vehicle 102 in a different direction, but it is not in an actionable region/doesn’t merge the path of emergency vehicle__),
And, further Paudel teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine that a second target vehicle is not anticipated to merge onto the route of the host vehicle based on a determination that: a road corresponding to the estimated path of the second target vehicle, according to the map, lacks the ramp section. ([0040],[0041], “collect audio data of a variety of sources 160 such as motorcycles, emergency vehicles,” [0046], “For example, the computer 110 may be programmed to determine the area of interest 210 by excluding portions of the detection area 200 physically separated (or inaccessible) from vehicle 100 path P. […] a point is inaccessible from a vehicle 100 path P when no direct line without any physical barrier can be drawn from the respective inaccessible point to a point on the path P. For example, the sound source 160B on the road 220B is outside the area of interest 210 because the road 220B is inaccessible with respect to the vehicle 100 path P.”, [0051], “The computer 110 may be programmed to ignore the received sound of the source 160B upon determining that the sound source 160B is outside the area of interest 210.”, [0054], __Note: area of interest as disclosed in the reference being physically separated or inaccessible from the vehicle’s path, reads on lacking a ramp section, as ramp section recited in the claim is interpreted as any adjoining/connecting road/sections__).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the control device as taught by Jung in view of prior arts relied upon. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include the steps of determining that a target vehicle is not anticipated to merge onto the host vehicle’s route based on the sound direction relative to the host vehicle, as taught by Arunachalam, and further determining if the road in which the target vehicle is driving lacks the ramp section or being inaccessible to the travelling road of the host vehicle as taught by Paudel. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so to improve the performance of the control device by detecting the location and direction of the emergency vehicles in the surrounding environment of the host vehicle and anticipating if the path of any of the emergency vehicles merge into the path of the host vehicle based on the direction and location of the emergency vehicle. This enhances the safety, reliability and trustworthiness of the autonomous driving. Furthermore, it would have been to one ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the process to detect different sounds associated with multiple vehicles and estimate their respective path, as also taught by Jung, to account for the presence of more than one target vehicle in the host vehicle’s vicinity.
Claim 6, 8-9, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Foster, further in view of Arunachalam.
Regarding claim 6 and 16, Jung discloses the device of claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1) and the method of claim 11 (See rejection of claim 11), however, Jung doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the controller is further configured to output a message based on a determination that a second target vehicle is not anticipated to merge onto the route of the host vehicle.
Nevertheless, Arunachalam teaches wherein the controller is further configured to output a message based on a determination that a second target vehicle is not anticipated to merge onto the route of the host vehicle. ([0005], “no alert or a reduced alert when the estimated location of the emergency vehicle is not within the actionable region.”, [0029], [0030], “When the siren sound source is not located in an actionable region (and/or when the siren sound source is not traveling toward the vehicle or traveling on an intersecting path with the vehicle, e.g., “NO” at 222), the method includes presenting no alert or providing a reduced alert”, “A reduced alert may include an identification that the emergency vehicle is heading away from the vehicle, and may optionally include an estimated location of the emergency vehicle (static or dynamically updated for a threshold period of time), as indicated at 226.”, [0025], “monitor traffic flow including proximate vehicles”, __monitoring proximate vehicles (in plural) reads on second target vehicle that when monitoring a plurality of proximate vehicles then it would also have been obvious that more than one target vehicles would be identified and tracked by sound__)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the control device, as taught by Jung in view of Foster, to include the steps of notifying the operator/occupant whether or not the emergency vehicle is approaching the host vehicle as taught by Arunachalam, with the reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the safety by increasing the awareness of the occupant/operator by outputting the message regarding the target/emergency route and if the host vehicle needs to take any action or no action depending of the determination.
Regarding claim 8 and 18, Jung discloses the device of claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1) and the method of claim 11 (See rejection of claim 11), however, Jung doesn’t disclose wherein the controller is configured to output a message based on a determination that the target vehicle is anticipated to merge onto the route of the host vehicle.
Nevertheless, Arunachalam teaches wherein the controller is configured to output a message based on a determination that the target vehicle is anticipated to merge onto the route of the host vehicle. ([0005], “no alert or a reduced alert when the estimated location of the emergency vehicle is not within the actionable region.”, [0029], [0031])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the control device, as taught by Jung to include the steps of notifying the operator/occupant whether or not the emergency vehicle is approaching the host vehicle as taught by Arunachalam, with the reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the safety by increasing the awareness of the occupant/operator by outputting the message regarding the target/emergency route and if the host vehicle needs to take any action or no action depending of the determination.
Regarding claim 9, the prior arts relied upon teaches the device of claim 8 (See the rejection of claim 8) and Jung discloses wherein the controller is configured to cause the host vehicle to take the evasive action by causing a driving assistance function of the host vehicle to create a passageway for the target vehicle. ([0088], “A control device according to the present embodiment is a controller for a vehicle capable of autonomous driving.”, “causing the vehicle to take an avoidance action in response to the emergency vehicle”, “Examples of the avoidance traveling include […] movement to a standby place (a road shoulder, a roadside zone, or the like where a temporary stop is possible), temporary stop at the standby place and standby for passage of the emergency vehicle,” __the vehicle capable of autonomous driving has a driving assistance function to control the vehicle__), wherein the target vehicle comprises an emergency vehicle. ([0088], “detecting an emergency vehicle traveling around the vehicle”)
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Foster, further in view of Arunachalam, further in view of Silver et al., US 20180374347 A1, hereinafter “Silver”.
Regarding claim 7 and 17, modified Jung in view of Arunachalam discloses the device of claim 6 (See rejection of claim 6) and the method of claim 16 (See rejection of claim 16), however, Jung doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to control, based on a determination that the second target vehicle is not anticipated to merge onto the route of the host vehicle, a driving assistance function of the host vehicle to cause the host vehicle to remain within a traveling lane of the host vehicle.
Nevertheless, Silver teaches wherein the controller is configured to control, based on a determination that the second target vehicle is not anticipated to merge onto the route of the host vehicle, a driving assistance function of the host vehicle to cause the host vehicle to remain within a traveling lane of the host vehicle. (e.g., Fig.8, [0005], “In another example, controlling the vehicle includes continuing on a current trajectory of the vehicle.”, [0020], “the observed movements of this emergency vehicle may also be considered when determining how best to respond to the emergency vehicle”, [0022], Fig. 4,[0033], [0043], [0048]-[0053], [0076], “If vehicle 451 is identified as an emergency vehicle, the computing devices 110 may control vehicle 100 to continue on the current trajectory at the same or slower speed”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the control device, as taught by Jung in view of Arunachalam to include the controlling step of host vehicle continue driving within the current traveling lane based on the determination that the path of target vehicle will not merging onto the path of host vehicle as taught by Silver, with the reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing overall reliability and trustworthiness of the autonomous driving.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Paudel, further in view of Foster.
Regarding claim 21, Jung discloses A host vehicle ([0008], “a vehicle capable of autonomous driving.”) comprising: a sensor configured to detect sound generated by at least one target vehicle ([0100], [0089]); a processor; and a memory storing at least one instruction that, when executed by the processor ([0069], [0105]), is configured to cause the host vehicle to: determine, based on sound generated by a first target vehicle of the at least one target vehicle, an estimated path of the first target vehicle (e.g., [0021], “controller”, “predicted traveling route of the emergency vehicle”, [0022]-0023], [0117], “calculate the detection reliability based on the feature of the information of the emergency vehicle”, “the feature of the information of the emergency vehicle is, for example, a detection frequency of a siren sound in acoustic recognition, […]”, );
Further, Jung discloses, according to the paragraph [0108], recognition of surrounding vehicles and prediction of traveling routes of the surrounding vehicles, that suggests the estimation of path of surrounding vehicles (in plural) which reads on claiming the limitations of determining the estimated path for first and second target vehicles, and therefore, teaches determine, based on sound generated by a second target vehicle of the at least one target vehicle, an estimated path of the second target vehicle.
Although Jung implicitly teaches determine, based on a map of an area associated with the host vehicle, a type of a first road segment associated with the estimated path of the first target vehicle ([0115], “the detection result may include area information on a map where the emergency vehicle is present, []. The one or more processors 120 use the map information to calculate such information of the emergency vehicle.”, [0004], “estimating an orientation of an emergency vehicle by [], identifying a part of a roadway on which the emergency vehicle is traveling by comparing the estimated orientation with map information” , [0108], [0132], “the number of road branches”, __Note: at least, according the cited paragraphs, Jung teaches road information as for example a part of roadway on which the emergency vehicle is traveling or the number of road branches which read on the road information as recited in the claim__), determine, based on the type of the first road segment being a first type, that the first target vehicle is not anticipated to merge onto a route of the host vehicle [0088], “The interference determination is to determine whether or not the predicted traveling route of the emergency vehicle interfere with the traveling route of the autonomous driving.”), However, for the purpose of compact prosecution and in the event that Jung doesn’t explicitly disclose determine, based on a map of an area associated with the host vehicle, a type of a first road segment associated with the estimated path of the first target vehicle [], determine, based on the type of the first road segment being a first type, that the first target vehicle is not anticipated to merge onto a route of the host vehicle, Paudel also teaches determine, based on sound generated by a first target vehicle of the at least one target vehicle, an estimated path of the first target vehicle ([0039], “estimate a trajectory T of the sound source”), and Paudel further teaches [] determine, based on a map of an area associated with the host vehicle, a type of a first road segment associated with the estimated path of the first target vehicle [], determine, based on the type of the first road segment being a first type, that the first target vehicle is not anticipated to merge onto a route of the host vehicle (([0040],[0041], “collect audio data of a variety of sources 160 such as motorcycles, emergency vehicles,” [0046], “For example, the computer 110 may be programmed to determine the area of interest 210 by excluding portions of the detection area 200 physically separated (or inaccessible) from vehicle 100 path P. […] a point is inaccessible from a vehicle 100 path P when no direct line without any physical barrier can be drawn from the respective inaccessible point to a point on the path P. For example, the sound source 160B on the road 220B is outside the area of interest 210 because the road 220B is inaccessible with respect to the vehicle 100 path P.”, [0051], “The computer 110 may be programmed to ignore the received sound of the source 160B upon determining that the sound source 160B is outside the area of interest 210.”, [0054]).
Furthermore, Although Jung teaches determine, based on a map of an area associated with the host vehicle, a type of ([0115], “the detection result may include area information on a map where the emergency vehicle is present, []. The one or more processors 120 use the map information to calculate such information of the emergency vehicle.”, [0004], “estimating an orientation of an emergency vehicle by [], identifying a part of a roadway on which the emergency vehicle is traveling by comparing the estimated orientation with map information” , [0108], [0132], “the number of road branches”, __Note: at least, according the cited paragraphs, Jung teaches road information as for example a part of roadway on which the emergency vehicle is traveling or the number of road branches which read on the road information as recited in the claim__); determine, based on the type of the ([0115], “area information on a map where the emergency vehicle is present”, [0088], “The interference determination is to determine whether or not the predicted traveling route of the emergency vehicle interfere with the traveling route of the autonomous driving.”[0088], [0090]), however, Jung doesn’t explicitly disclose or suggest whether the by determining whether the estimated path of the second target vehicle comprises a ramp section that connects the estimated path of the second target vehicle to the route of the host vehicle.
Nevertheless, Foster discloses systems and methods for operating an autonomous vehicle appropriately on public roads, highways, and locations with other vehicles or pedestrians (Foster, see at least Abstract and paragraph [0002]) and teaches localizing an emergency vehicle to determine if it is approaching an autonomous vehicle based on the direction and loudness of the siren of the emergency vehicle (See at least Foster, paragraph [1097]-[1108]) and teaches whether the by determining whether the estimated path of the second target vehicle comprises a ramp section that connects the estimated path of the second target vehicle to the route of the host vehicle (Foster, [1648], “An autonomous vehicle may navigate K-ramp accept merge-in scenarios using a model to predict whether the vehicle on the K-ramp will merge into autonomous vehicle's lane.”, [1651], also see, for example, paragraphs [0056], [0165], “An ELV on a ramp section of a highway may require a first type of behavior,”, [0166], “when the ELV is in a location that is not a ramp section,”, [0228], “For example, an autonomous vehicle may slow down and bias may be used together except for onramp scenarios and scenarios in which the autonomous vehicle determines that the ELV is merging in and intends to cut behind,”, [0246], __Note: According to at least cited paragraphs, Foster teaches determining if an emergency vehicle or any other vehicle (NPC) is on a ramp section and approaching the autonomous vehicle and based on that it takes an appropriate action/behavior which reads on the claimed limitation__)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the control device taught by Jung for detecting and estimating the route of emergency/target vehicles and instructing the host vehicle to take proper invasive action if the estimated emergency vehicle’s route merges onto the path of the host vehicle, with determining if the emergency vehicle is traveling on a ramp that head toward/merge the host vehicle’s path as taught by Foster, and further with the determination of the case that the detected emergency vehicle is not merging the host vehicle’s path as more explicitly taught by Paudel, with the motivation of improving the accuracy of the estimation of the route of an emergency vehicle by considering the road information and respective controlling action of the host vehicle in response to the determination/estimation of the route of emergency vehicle. This improves the autonomous vehicle’s safety and reliability. Furthermore, it would have been to one ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the process to detect different sounds associated with multiple vehicles and estimate their respective path, as also taught by Jung, to account for the presence of more than one target vehicle in the host vehicle’s vicinity.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Paudel, further in view of Foster, further in view of Arunachalam, and further in view of Foster.
Regarding claim 22, Jung teaches wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the processor, is configured to cause the host vehicle to: detect sound generated by at least one target vehicle while an automated lane keeping function is activated ([0089], “The detection of the emergency vehicle is performed by, for example, acquiring sound information detected by a plurality of microphones included in the vehicle”, [0094], “Examples of the preliminary action related to controls or decisions of traveling include suppressing acceleration/deceleration, prohibiting lane change,”); activate a driving assist function; and automatically adjusting, using the activated driving assist function, autonomous driving, of the host vehicle, toward a destination of the host vehicle to create a passageway for the second target vehicle ([0003], “While driving a vehicle, in a case where an emergency vehicle is traveling around and is expected to interfere with the traveling route of the vehicle, it is required to perform an avoidance action for the emergency vehicle so as not to hinder traveling of the emergency vehicle.”, [0088], “Examples of the avoidance traveling include deceleration, movement to a standby place (a road shoulder, a roadside zone, or the like where a temporary stop is possible), temporary stop at the standby place and standby for passage of the emergency vehicle, return to a normal traveling route after passage of the emergency vehicle, and the like.”).
However, Jung doesn’t explicitly teach filter, based on the determination that the first target vehicle is not anticipated to merge onto the route of the host vehicle, the sound generated by the first target vehicle; determine that the second target vehicle is anticipated to merge onto the route of the host vehicle based on a determination that: a road corresponding to the estimated path of the second target vehicle comprises the ramp section, and a curvature of a moving path of the sound generated by the second target vehicle matches a curvature of the ramp section;
Nevertheless, Arunachalam teaches filter, based on the determination that the first target vehicle is not anticipated to merge onto the route of the host vehicle, the sound generated by the first target vehicle [0030], “When the siren sound source is not located in an actionable region (and/or when the siren sound source is not traveling toward the vehicle or traveling on an intersecting path with the vehicle, e.g., “NO” at 222)”;
Nevertheless, Foster teaches determine that the second target vehicle is anticipated to merge onto the route of the host vehicle based on a determination that: a road corresponding to the estimated path of the second target vehicle comprises the ramp section, and a curvature of a moving path of the sound generated by the second target vehicle matches a curvature of the ramp section ([1632], “An autonomous vehicle may monitor the speed and velocity of all vehicles on ramps that may arrive at the earliest merge point within a pre-determined number of seconds or a pre-determined amount of curvature”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the control device for the detecting an emergency/target vehicle based on the associated sound, and filtering the sound based on the determination that the emergency vehicle is not merging onto the host vehicle as taught by Arunachalam and further with predicting the route of the emergency vehicle by analyzing the sound track to detect if the emergency vehicle is traveling on a curved ramp heading toward the host vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the accuracy of the anticipation whether the emergency vehicle is heading toward the host vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm ET.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669