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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 02, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, Examiner maintains the previous non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 02/02/2026 with respect to previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and persuasive.
With respect to the newly amended subject matter and applicant’s arguments, the Examiner relies upon newly cited reference Yu (US 2021/0039650 A1).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 11 and 19 of copending Application No. 18/235,793 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of claim 1 of the reference application encompasses the scope of claim 9. Similarly, the scope of claim 11 of the reference application encompasses the scope of claim 19.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 10-12, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Englard et al (US 2019/0113927 A1), (hence Englard) in view of Hwang et al (US 10,906,558 B1), (hereinafter Hwang) in further view of Yu (US 2021/0039650 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Englard discloses a method for navigation planning for an autonomous vehicle in performing a courtesy lane change, the method comprising: (see Englard figures 7A & 11 and paras “0002” and “0009” “The self-driving control architecture also includes a mapping component configured to provide navigation data for guiding the autonomous vehicle through the environment toward a destination”),
obtaining, by a processor of an autonomous vehicle, sensor data from a plurality of sensors onboard the autonomous vehicle for a roadway, the roadway including a current travel lane of the autonomous vehicle, an adjacent travel lane that is adjacent to the current travel lane, (see Englard figure 10 “multiple lanes” and para “0121” “For example, the laser 410 may include a controller or processor that receives data from each of the sensor heads 412 (e.g., via a corresponding electrical link 420) and processes the received data to construct a point cloud covering a 360-degree horizontal view around a vehicle or to determine distances to one or more targets”),
obtaining, by the processor, a first cost value for the current travel lane and a second cost value for the adjacent lane by applying a lane-selection cost function on the sensor data and map data, (see Englard figure 12 and para “0153” regarding cost maps “The cost map generator 640 may determine costs per cell based on the proximity of the cell to an object (e.g., an object identified by the segmentation module 610 and depicted in the current occupancy grid), the class or label for the object (e.g., a class determined by the classification module 612 and specified in the current occupancy grid), the current speed and direction of the object (e.g., as determined using the output of the tracking module 614), current operational parameters of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., speed and direction), and/or one or more other factors.”),
Englard fails to explicitly teach a tapering travel lane that is adjacent to the current lane of travel and on an opposite side of the current travel lane from the adjacent travel lane; identifying, by the processor, a merging vehicle in the tapering lane that needs to merge into the current lane before the tapering lane ends by applying an object recognition engine on the sensor data, wherein obtaining the first cost value and the second cost value further comprises: determining the second cost value determined based, at least in part, upon a courtesy weight associated with a preference to perform the courtesy lane change.
However, Hwang teaches a tapering travel lane that is adjacent to the current lane of travel and on an opposite side of the current travel lane from the adjacent travel lane (see Hwang fig. 1E and col 8, lines 14-65 “Therefore, the third label (e.g., merging label 262A) is assigned to the object 204A which represents the vehicle 104A.”),
identifying, by the processor, a merging vehicle in the tapering travel lane that needs to merge into the current lane before the tapering travel lane ends by applying an object recognition engine on the sensor data (see Hwang fig. 1E and col 8, lines 14-65 “Therefore, the third label (e.g., merging label 262A) is assigned to the object 204A which represents the vehicle 104A.” regarding a merging vehicle 104A that is merging in a tapering lane to the main lane that the vehicle 102 is traveling on),
wherein obtaining the first cost value and the second cost value further comprises: determining the second cost value determined based, at least in part, upon a courtesy weight associated with a preference to perform the courtesy lane change (see Hwang col 12, lines 19-57 and col 14, lines 1-6 “Upon determining that the space label of the object is “merging” and the race result label of the object is “winner,” the interaction label is set to “yield.” As the object is determined to be merging into the lane on which vehicle 102 is located and the object is predicted to arrive at a common position in the world before the vehicle 102, the interaction label for the object is set to yield indicating that the vehicle 102 is to yield the road to the object… if it is determined that the race result label of the object is “winner,” the interaction label of the object is set to “stay-behind.” In other words, if the driving lane of the object is determined to be coinciding with the lane of vehicle 102 (i.e., it is not merging but becomes the lane of vehicle 102 instead) or if the object is determined to be in a non-merging lane but is infringing on the lane of the vehicle 102, and the object is determined to arrive earlier to a common position in the world, then the vehicle is to stay behind the object” regarding determining if the space label is winner which means the merging vehicle can perform a lane change to the main lane and if the label is saying stay behind then it will perform a lane change but the merging vehicle will remain behind the main vehicle in the merging lane (i.e., courtesy lane change)),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Englard for controlling an autonomous vehicle using cost maps to incorporate the cost function based trajectory determination and interaction labeling mechanism into the navigation planning system, as taught by Hwang (col 12, lines 19-57 and col 14, lines 1-6) in order to improve decision making for lane change maneuvers by enabling the vehicle to evaluate merging scenarios and determine optimal or courteous behaviors based on quantified costs.
but Englard modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the second cost value for the adjacent travel lane is associated with performing a courtesy lane change by the autonomous vehicle from the current travel lane into the adjacent travel lane for the merging vehicle to merge into the current travel lane; generating, by the processor, a control command based upon the first cost value and the second cost value; and controlling, by the processor, operation of the autonomous vehicle based on the control command.
However, Yu teaches wherein the second cost value for the adjacent travel lane is associated with performing a courtesy lane change by the autonomous vehicle from the current travel lane into the adjacent travel lane for the merging vehicle to merge into the current travel lane (see Yu paras “0089-0090”, “0096” and “0133-0134” “The merging controller 142 controls the host vehicle M to merge into the main lane until a timing when the host vehicle M arrives at the end nose that is a terminal end of the lane L3. The merging controller 142 controls the host vehicle M to start to merge into the lane L1 on the basis of the detection result of the main lane vehicle m1 detected by the second detector 134. The merging controller 142 controls merging of the host vehicle M regardless of lane changing of the main lane vehicle m1 when the distance D in the forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle M with respect to the main lane vehicle m1 that is traveling along the main lane is a predetermined distance or more”, “The merging controller 142 controls merging start of the host vehicle M when the distance D in the forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle M with respect to the main lane vehicle m1 that is traveling along the main lane is less than the predetermined distance and the main lane vehicle m1 changes a lane from the lane L1 to the lane L2. The merging controller 142 controls merging of the host vehicle M by decelerating the host vehicle M such that the distance D in the forward/rearward direction becomes the predetermined distance or more, or by changing the vehicle that is a merging control target to a vehicle that is traveling behind the main lane vehicle m1, when the distance D in the forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle M with respect to the main lane vehicle m1 that is traveling along the main lane is less than the predetermined distance and the main lane vehicle m1 does not change a lane from the lane L1 to the lane L2” and “controls merging of the host vehicle regardless of the lane changing of the other vehicle when a distance in a forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle with respect to the other vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined value” regarding allowing another vehicle to merge while performing a lane change to the second lane adjacent to the current traveling lane),
generating, by the processor, a control command based upon the first cost value and the second cost value; and controlling, by the processor, operation of the autonomous vehicle based on the control command (see Yu paras “0089-0090”, “0096” and “0133-0134” “The merging controller 142 controls the host vehicle M to merge into the main lane until a timing when the host vehicle M arrives at the end nose that is a terminal end of the lane L3. The merging controller 142 controls the host vehicle M to start to merge into the lane L1 on the basis of the detection result of the main lane vehicle m1 detected by the second detector 134. The merging controller 142 controls merging of the host vehicle M regardless of lane changing of the main lane vehicle m1 when the distance D in the forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle M with respect to the main lane vehicle m1 that is traveling along the main lane is a predetermined distance or more”, “The merging controller 142 controls merging start of the host vehicle M when the distance D in the forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle M with respect to the main lane vehicle m1 that is traveling along the main lane is less than the predetermined distance and the main lane vehicle m1 changes a lane from the lane L1 to the lane L2. The merging controller 142 controls merging of the host vehicle M by decelerating the host vehicle M such that the distance D in the forward/rearward direction becomes the predetermined distance or more, or by changing the vehicle that is a merging control target to a vehicle that is traveling behind the main lane vehicle m1, when the distance D in the forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle M with respect to the main lane vehicle m1 that is traveling along the main lane is less than the predetermined distance and the main lane vehicle m1 does not change a lane from the lane L1 to the lane L2” and “controls merging of the host vehicle regardless of the lane changing of the other vehicle when a distance in a forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle with respect to the other vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined value” regarding allowing another vehicle to merge while performing a lane change to the second lane adjacent to the current traveling lane).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Englard for controlling an autonomous vehicle using cost maps to control merging of the host vehicle regardless of a lane changing of the other vehicle when a distance in a forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle with respect to the other vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined amount, as taught by Yu (paras [0089-0090] – [0133-0134]) in order to perform a stable lane changing during traffic congestion.
Regarding claim 2, Englard discloses further comprising determining, by the processor, that the first cost value is comparatively lower than the second cost value, wherein the control command causes the autonomous vehicle to continue driving the current travel lane (see Englard figure 12 and para “0062” “In some embodiments, the safety watchdog 112 analyzes at least a portion of the sensor data 102, and applies relatively simple rules or algorithms to determine allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers and/or states of the autonomous vehicle. For example, the safety watchdog 112 may require that the autonomous vehicle maintain at least a distance of x meters between itself and an object in or near the path of the autonomous vehicle, where x is calculated by a fixed equation that accounts for the current speed and direction of the autonomous vehicle relative to the object”).
Regarding claim 4, Englard discloses further comprising: simulating, by the processor, a merging vehicle trajectory by forward-propagating the merging vehicle in the map data using the sensor data; and determining, by the processor, a closing-distance of the autonomous vehicle relative to the merging vehicle (see Englard figure 12 and para “0062” “In some embodiments, the safety watchdog 112 analyzes at least a portion of the sensor data 102, and applies relatively simple rules or algorithms to determine allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers and/or states of the autonomous vehicle. For example, the safety watchdog 112 may require that the autonomous vehicle maintain at least a distance of x meters between itself and an object in or near the path of the autonomous vehicle, where x is calculated by a fixed equation that accounts for the current speed and direction of the autonomous vehicle relative to the object”).
Regarding claim 5, Englard discloses wherein the processor updates each cost value and the control command in response to identifying the merging vehicle (see Englard figure 11 and paras “0150-0152” and “0159” regarding the identification of objects in the surrounding area is continuously being carried out (sensor signals, as in fig 11) and the cost maps (644) are updated at intervals, leading to updated control commands”).
Regarding claim 6, Englard discloses wherein the processor continually updates each cost value and the control command at a preconfigured interval (see Englard figure 11 and paras “0150-0152” and “0159” regarding the identification of objects in the surrounding area is continuously being carried out (sensor signals, as in fig 11) and the cost maps (644) are updated at intervals, leading to updated control commands”).
Regarding claim 10, Englard discloses further comprising detecting, by the processor, the tapering travel lane based upon the map data stored in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium accessible to the processor (see Englard map data is shown in figs. 10 & 12, used in Mapping Component (730) (Fig. 13) and paras “0012” and “0153” “Another example embodiment of the techniques of this disclosure is a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions. The instructions are executable by one or more processors to implement a self-driving control architecture for controlling an autonomous vehicle”).
Regarding claim 11, Englard discloses a system for navigation planning for an autonomous vehicle (see Englard figures 7A & 11 and paras “0002” and “0009” “The self-driving control architecture also includes a mapping component configured to provide navigation data for guiding the autonomous vehicle through the environment toward a destination”),
the system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable memory on board an autonomous vehicle configured to store map data associated with a geographic location having an intersection; and a processor of the autonomous vehicle configured to (see Englard map data is shown in figs. 10 & 12, used in Mapping Component (730) (Fig. 13) and paras “0012” and “0153” “Another example embodiment of the techniques of this disclosure is a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions. The instructions are executable by one or more processors to implement a self-driving control architecture for controlling an autonomous vehicle”),
obtain sensor data from a plurality of sensors onboard the autonomous vehicle for a roadway, the roadway including a current travel lane of the autonomous vehicle, an adjacent travel lane that is adjacent to the current travel lane (see Englard figure 10 “multiple lanes” and para “0121” “For example, the laser 410 may include a controller or processor that receives data from each of the sensor heads 412 (e.g., via a corresponding electrical link 420) and processes the received data to construct a point cloud covering a 360-degree horizontal view around a vehicle or to determine distances to one or more targets”),
identify a merging vehicle in the tapering lane by applying an object recognition engine on the sensor data; obtain a first cost value for the current travel lane and a second cost value for the adjacent lane by applying a lane-selection cost function on the sensor data and map data, (see Englard figure 12 and para “0153” regarding cost maps “The cost map generator 640 may determine costs per cell based on the proximity of the cell to an object (e.g., an object identified by the segmentation module 610 and depicted in the current occupancy grid), the class or label for the object (e.g., a class determined by the classification module 612 and specified in the current occupancy grid), the current speed and direction of the object (e.g., as determined using the output of the tracking module 614), current operational parameters of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., speed and direction), and/or one or more other factors.”),
Englard fails to explicitly teach a tapering travel lane that is adjacent to the current travel lane and on an opposite side of the current travel lane from the adjacent travel lane; identify a merging vehicle in the tapering travel lane that needs to merge into the current travel lane before the tapering travel lane ends by applying an object recognition engine on the sensor data, wherein obtain the first cost value and the second cost value further comprises: determine the second cost value based, at least in part, upon a courtesy weight associated with a preference to perform the courtesy lane change.
However, Hwang teaches a tapering travel lane that is adjacent to the current travel lane and on an opposite side of the current travel lane from the adjacent travel lane (see Hwang fig. 1E and col 8, lines 14-65 “Therefore, the third label (e.g., merging label 262A) is assigned to the object 204A which represents the vehicle 104A.”),
identify a merging vehicle in the tapering travel lane that needs to merge into the current travel lane before the tapering travel lane ends by applying an object recognition engine on the sensor data (see Hwang fig. 1E and col 8, lines 14-65 “Therefore, the third label (e.g., merging label 262A) is assigned to the object 204A which represents the vehicle 104A.” regarding a merging vehicle 104A that is merging in a tapering lane to the main lane that the vehicle 102 is traveling on),
wherein obtain the first cost value and the second cost value further comprises: determine the second cost value based, at least in part, upon a courtesy weight associated with a preference to perform the courtesy lane change (see Hwang col 12, lines 19-57 and col 14, lines 1-6 “Upon determining that the space label of the object is “merging” and the race result label of the object is “winner,” the interaction label is set to “yield.” As the object is determined to be merging into the lane on which vehicle 102 is located and the object is predicted to arrive at a common position in the world before the vehicle 102, the interaction label for the object is set to yield indicating that the vehicle 102 is to yield the road to the object… if it is determined that the race result label of the object is “winner,” the interaction label of the object is set to “stay-behind.” In other words, if the driving lane of the object is determined to be coinciding with the lane of vehicle 102 (i.e., it is not merging but becomes the lane of vehicle 102 instead) or if the object is determined to be in a non-merging lane but is infringing on the lane of the vehicle 102, and the object is determined to arrive earlier to a common position in the world, then the vehicle is to stay behind the object” regarding determining if the space label is winner which means the merging vehicle can perform a lane change to the main lane and if the label is saying stay behind then it will perform a lane change but the merging vehicle will remain behind the main vehicle in the merging lane (i.e., courtesy lane change)),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Englard for controlling an autonomous vehicle using cost maps to incorporate the cost function based trajectory determination and interaction labeling mechanism into the navigation planning system, as taught by Hwang (col 12, lines 19-57 and col 14, lines 1-6) in order to improve decision making for lane change maneuvers by enabling the vehicle to evaluate merging scenarios and determine optimal or courteous behaviors based on quantified costs.
but Englard modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the second cost value for the adjacent travel lane is associated with performing a courtesy lane change by the autonomous vehicle from the current travel lane into the adjacent travel lane for the merging vehicle to merge into the current travel lane; generate a control command based upon the first cost value and the second cost value; and control operation of the autonomous vehicle based on the control command.
However, Yu teaches wherein the second cost value for the adjacent travel lane is associated with performing a courtesy lane change by the autonomous vehicle from the current travel lane into the adjacent travel lane for the merging vehicle to merge into the current travel lane (see Yu paras “0089-0090”, “0096” and “0133-0134” “The merging controller 142 controls the host vehicle M to merge into the main lane until a timing when the host vehicle M arrives at the end nose that is a terminal end of the lane L3. The merging controller 142 controls the host vehicle M to start to merge into the lane L1 on the basis of the detection result of the main lane vehicle m1 detected by the second detector 134. The merging controller 142 controls merging of the host vehicle M regardless of lane changing of the main lane vehicle m1 when the distance D in the forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle M with respect to the main lane vehicle m1 that is traveling along the main lane is a predetermined distance or more”, “The merging controller 142 controls merging start of the host vehicle M when the distance D in the forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle M with respect to the main lane vehicle m1 that is traveling along the main lane is less than the predetermined distance and the main lane vehicle m1 changes a lane from the lane L1 to the lane L2. The merging controller 142 controls merging of the host vehicle M by decelerating the host vehicle M such that the distance D in the forward/rearward direction becomes the predetermined distance or more, or by changing the vehicle that is a merging control target to a vehicle that is traveling behind the main lane vehicle m1, when the distance D in the forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle M with respect to the main lane vehicle m1 that is traveling along the main lane is less than the predetermined distance and the main lane vehicle m1 does not change a lane from the lane L1 to the lane L2” and “controls merging of the host vehicle regardless of the lane changing of the other vehicle when a distance in a forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle with respect to the other vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined value” regarding allowing another vehicle to merge while performing a lane change to the second lane adjacent to the current traveling lane),
generate a control command based upon the first cost value and the second cost value; and control operation of the autonomous vehicle based on the control command. (see Yu paras “0089-0090”, “0096” and “0133-0134” “The merging controller 142 controls the host vehicle M to merge into the main lane until a timing when the host vehicle M arrives at the end nose that is a terminal end of the lane L3. The merging controller 142 controls the host vehicle M to start to merge into the lane L1 on the basis of the detection result of the main lane vehicle m1 detected by the second detector 134. The merging controller 142 controls merging of the host vehicle M regardless of lane changing of the main lane vehicle m1 when the distance D in the forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle M with respect to the main lane vehicle m1 that is traveling along the main lane is a predetermined distance or more”, “The merging controller 142 controls merging start of the host vehicle M when the distance D in the forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle M with respect to the main lane vehicle m1 that is traveling along the main lane is less than the predetermined distance and the main lane vehicle m1 changes a lane from the lane L1 to the lane L2. The merging controller 142 controls merging of the host vehicle M by decelerating the host vehicle M such that the distance D in the forward/rearward direction becomes the predetermined distance or more, or by changing the vehicle that is a merging control target to a vehicle that is traveling behind the main lane vehicle m1, when the distance D in the forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle M with respect to the main lane vehicle m1 that is traveling along the main lane is less than the predetermined distance and the main lane vehicle m1 does not change a lane from the lane L1 to the lane L2” and “controls merging of the host vehicle regardless of the lane changing of the other vehicle when a distance in a forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle with respect to the other vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined value” regarding allowing another vehicle to merge while performing a lane change to the second lane adjacent to the current traveling lane).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Englard for controlling an autonomous vehicle using cost maps to control merging of the host vehicle regardless of a lane changing of the other vehicle when a distance in a forward/rearward direction of the host vehicle with respect to the other vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined amount, as taught by Yu (paras [0089-0090] – [0133-0134]) in order to perform a stable lane changing during traffic congestion.
Regarding claim 12, Englard discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the first cost value is comparatively lower than the second cost value, wherein the control command causes the autonomous vehicle to continue driving the current travel lane (see Englard figure 12 and para “0062” “In some embodiments, the safety watchdog 112 analyzes at least a portion of the sensor data 102, and applies relatively simple rules or algorithms to determine allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers and/or states of the autonomous vehicle. For example, the safety watchdog 112 may require that the autonomous vehicle maintain at least a distance of x meters between itself and an object in or near the path of the autonomous vehicle, where x is calculated by a fixed equation that accounts for the current speed and direction of the autonomous vehicle relative to the object”).
Regarding claim 14, Englard discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: simulate a merging vehicle trajectory by forward-propagating the merging vehicle in the map data using the sensor data; and determine a closing-distance of the autonomous vehicle relative to the merging vehicle (see Englard figure 12 and para “0062” “In some embodiments, the safety watchdog 112 analyzes at least a portion of the sensor data 102, and applies relatively simple rules or algorithms to determine allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers and/or states of the autonomous vehicle. For example, the safety watchdog 112 may require that the autonomous vehicle maintain at least a distance of x meters between itself and an object in or near the path of the autonomous vehicle, where x is calculated by a fixed equation that accounts for the current speed and direction of the autonomous vehicle relative to the object”).
Regarding claim 15, Englard discloses wherein the processor updates each cost value and the control command in response to identifying the merging vehicle (see Englard figure 11 and paras “0150-0152” and “0159” regarding the identification of objects in the surrounding area is continuously being carried out (sensor signals, as in fig 11) and the cost maps (644) are updated at intervals, leading to updated control commands”).
Regarding claim 16, Englard discloses wherein the processor continually updates each cost value and the control command at a preconfigured interval (see Englard figure 11 and paras “0150-0152” and “0159” regarding the identification of objects in the surrounding area is continuously being carried out (sensor signals, as in fig 11) and the cost maps (644) are updated at intervals, leading to updated control commands”).
Regarding claim 20, Englard discloses wherein the processor is further configured to detect the tapering travel lane based upon the map data stored in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium accessible to the processor (see Englard map data is shown in figs. 10 & 12, used in Mapping Component (730) (Fig. 13) and paras “0012” and “0153” “Another example embodiment of the techniques of this disclosure is a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions. The instructions are executable by one or more processors to implement a self-driving control architecture for controlling an autonomous vehicle”).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Englard et al (US 20319/0113927 A1), (hence Englard) in view of Hwang et al (US 10,906,558 B1), (hereinafter Hwang) in further view of Yu (US 2021/0039650 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in further view of Nishiguchi et al (US 2017/0349173 A1) (hence Nishiguchi).
Regarding claim 3, Englard fails to explicitly disclose further comprising determining, by the processor, that the second cost value is comparatively lower than the first cost value, wherein the control command causes the autonomous vehicle to perform a lane change into the adjacent travel lane.
However, Nishiguchi teaches further comprising determining, by the processor, that the second cost value is comparatively lower than the first cost value, wherein the control command causes the autonomous vehicle to perform a lane change into the adjacent travel lane (see Nishiguchi paras “0012-0013" and “0122” “this enables quick lane changing from the point in time that the second distance threshold value that is shorter than the first distance threshold value has been exceeded in cases in which a nearby vehicle (a vehicle ahead) accelerates to open up a space to allow the vehicle to change lanes, or in cases in which it is clear that a nearby vehicle (a vehicle ahead) will open up a space by accelerating”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Englard for controlling an autonomous vehicle using cost maps to open up a space to allow the vehicle to change lanes as taught by Nishiguchi (paras. [0012-0013]) in order to provide a driving assistance device capable of controlling lane changing safely.
Regarding claim 13, Englard fails to explicitly disclose further comprising determining, by the processor, that the second cost value is comparatively lower than the first cost value, wherein the control command causes the autonomous vehicle to perform a lane change into the adjacent travel lane.
However, Nishiguchi teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the second cost value is comparatively lower than the first cost value, wherein the control command causes the autonomous vehicle to perform a lane change into the adjacent travel lane (see Nishiguchi paras “0012-0013" and “0122” “this enables quick lane changing from the point in time that the second distance threshold value that is shorter than the first distance threshold value has been exceeded in cases in which a nearby vehicle (a vehicle ahead) accelerates to open up a space to allow the vehicle to change lanes, or in cases in which it is clear that a nearby vehicle (a vehicle ahead) will open up a space by accelerating”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Englard for controlling an autonomous vehicle using cost maps to open up a space to allow the vehicle to change lanes as taught by Nishiguchi (paras. [0012-0013]) in order to provide a driving assistance device capable of controlling lane changing safely.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Englard et al (US 2019/0113927 A1), (hence Englard) in view of Hwang et al (US 10,906,558 B1), (hereinafter Hwang) in further view of Yu (US 2021/0039650 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in further view of Nilsson et al (US 2017/0242435 A1) (hence Nilsson).
Regarding claim 7, Englard discloses further comprising: detecting, by the processor, a plurality of traffic vehicles in the adjacent travel lane (see Englard paras “0087-0089" “sensing and identification of other objects”), But modified Englard fails to explicitly disclose identifying, by the processor, a traffic gap between a first traffic vehicle and a second traffic vehicle in the adjacent travel lane, the traffic gap defining an amount of distance between the first traffic vehicle and the second traffic vehicle.
However, Nilsson teaches identifying, by the processor, a traffic gap between a first traffic vehicle and a second traffic vehicle in the adjacent travel lane (see Nilsson para “0024" “The sensing system of the ego vehicle may be utilized for determining relative positions and/or velocities of at least one surrounding object, preferably for all, or substantially all, surrounding objects, to thereby determine existing inter-vehicle traffic gaps”),
the traffic gap defining an amount of distance between the first traffic vehicle and the second traffic vehicle (see Nilsson fig 1 and paras “0024-0032" “The inter-vehicle traffic gap region is defined by the objects which the ego vehicle should account for after leaving the lane-change region and moving into the target lane. The inter-vehicle traffic gap region is located in the target lane”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to have combined the traffic gap identification of Nilsson in the system of Englard. The motivation would be to increase capability of the system.
Regarding claim 17, Englard discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: detect a plurality of traffic vehicles in the adjacent travel lane (see Englard paras “0087-0089" “sensing and identification of other objects”), But modified Englard fails to explicitly disclose identify a traffic gap between a first traffic vehicle and a second traffic vehicle in the adjacent travel lane, the traffic gap defining an amount of distance between the first traffic vehicle and the second traffic vehicle.
However, Nilsson teaches identify a traffic gap between a first traffic vehicle and a second traffic vehicle in the adjacent travel lane (see Nilsson para “0024" “The sensing system of the ego vehicle may be utilized for determining relative positions and/or velocities of at least one surrounding object, preferably for all, or substantially all, surrounding objects, to thereby determine existing inter-vehicle traffic gaps”),
the traffic gap defining an amount of distance between the first traffic vehicle and the second traffic vehicle (see Nilsson fig 1 and paras “0024-0032" “The inter-vehicle traffic gap region is defined by the objects which the ego vehicle should account for after leaving the lane-change region and moving into the target lane. The inter-vehicle traffic gap region is located in the target lane”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to have combined the traffic gap identification of Nilsson in the system of Englard. The motivation would be to increase capability of the system.
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Englard et al (US 2019/0113927 A1), (hence Englard) in view of Hwang et al (US 10,906,558 B1), (hereinafter Hwang) in further view of Yu (US 2021/0039650 A1) in further view of Nilsson et al (US 2017/0242435 A1) (hence Nilsson). as applied to claims 7 and 17 above, in further view of Nishiguchi et al (US 2017/0349173 A1) (hence Nishiguchi).
Regarding claim 8, Englard fails to explicitly further comprising determining, by the processor, a candidate trajectory of the autonomous vehicle for moving into the adjacent travel lane based upon the traffic gap.
However, Nishiguchi teaches further comprising determining, by the processor, a candidate trajectory of the autonomous vehicle for moving into the adjacent travel lane based upon the traffic gap (see Nishiguchi paras “0012-0013" and “0122” “this enables quick lane changing from the point in time that the second distance threshold value that is shorter than the first distance threshold value has been exceeded in cases in which a nearby vehicle (a vehicle ahead) accelerates to open up a space to allow the vehicle to change lanes, or in cases in which it is clear that a nearby vehicle (a vehicle ahead) will open up a space by accelerating”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Englard for controlling an autonomous vehicle using cost maps to open up a space to allow the vehicle to change lanes as taught by Nishiguchi (paras. [0012-0013]) in order to provide a driving assistance device capable of controlling lane changing safely.
Regarding claim 9, Englard fails to explicitly wherein the processor generates the control command for continuing to drive in the current travel lane when the processor fails to identify the traffic gap satisfying a threshold distance.
However, Nishiguchi teaches wherein the processor generates the control command for continuing to drive in the current travel lane when the processor fails to identify the traffic gap satisfying a threshold distance (see Nishiguchi paras “0012-0013", “0022” and “0122” “determines lane changing to be not permitted when the nearby vehicle is approaching the vehicle and the distance is shorter than the first distance threshold value. In the lane change permission determination, after determining lane changing to be not permitted due to the nearby vehicle approaching the vehicle, the electronic control unit switches the determination result from lane changing not permitted to lane changing permitted when the nearby vehicle decelerates or accelerates to move further away from the vehicle than a second distance threshold value, even if the distance is still shorter than the first distance threshold value”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Englard for controlling an autonomous vehicle using cost maps to not permit lane change if the gap is shorter than a predetermined threshold as taught by Nishiguchi (para. [0022]) in order to provide a driving assistance device capable of controlling lane changing safely and avoid any collisions that may occur.
Regarding claim 18, Englard fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to determine a candidate trajectory of the autonomous vehicle for moving into the adjacent travel lane based upon the traffic gap.
However, Nishiguchi teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine a candidate trajectory of the autonomous vehicle for moving into the adjacent travel lane based upon the traffic gap (see Nishiguchi paras “0012-0013" and “0122” “this enables quick lane changing from the point in time that the second distance threshold value that is shorter than the first distance threshold value has been exceeded in cases in which a nearby vehicle (a vehicle ahead) accelerates to open up a space to allow the vehicle to change lanes, or in cases in which it is clear that a nearby vehicle (a vehicle ahead) will open up a space by accelerating”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Englard for controlling an autonomous vehicle using cost maps to open up a space to allow the vehicle to change lanes as taught by Nishiguchi (paras. [0012-0013]) in order to provide a driving assistance device capable of controlling lane changing safely.
Regarding claim 19, Englard fails to explicitly wherein the processor generates the control command for continuing to drive in the current travel lane when the processor fails to identify the traffic gap satisfying a threshold distance.
However, Nishiguchi teaches wherein the processor generates the control command for continuing to drive in the current travel lane when the processor fails to identify the traffic gap satisfying a threshold distance (see Nishiguchi paras “0012-0013", “0022” and “0122” “determines lane changing to be not permitted when the nearby vehicle is approaching the vehicle and the distance is shorter than the first distance threshold value. In the lane change permission determination, after determining lane changing to be not permitted due to the nearby vehicle approaching the vehicle, the electronic control unit switches the determination result from lane changing not permitted to lane changing permitted when the nearby vehicle decelerates or accelerates to move further away from the vehicle than a second distance threshold value, even if the distance is still shorter than the first distance threshold value”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Englard for controlling an autonomous vehicle using cost maps to not permit lane change if the gap is shorter than a predetermined threshold as taught by Nishiguchi (para. [0022]) in order to provide a driving assistance device capable of controlling lane changing safely and avoid any collisions that may occur.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664