DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See MPEP 2106.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 6, 14 are directed to a system, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and method. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim(s) 1 and 6 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below) and will be used as a representative claims for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving a route for an autonomous vehicle to traverse through an environment, the route associated with a plurality of lanes;
determining, as a lane ending for a lane of the plurality of lanes and based at least in part on a desired endpoint, a position along the lane where the autonomous vehicle is unable to follow the lane to arrive at the desired endpoint;
determining, based at least in part on the lane ending, a lane ending cost associated with a portion of the lane, wherein the lane ending cost increases a cost of driving in the lane;
determining a cost for a candidate trajectory based at least in part on the lane ending cost;
determining a control trajectory for the autonomous vehicle, based at least in part on the cost for the candidate trajectory; and
controlling the autonomous vehicle based at least in part on the control trajectory.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitation(s) in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining that a route that includes to taking an exit; determining that the vehicle is in a different lane than the exit lane; determining costs for points in each lane; determining potential trajectories to the exit lane based on the determined costs; select a trajectory to change lanes to the exit lane.
Claim 6 recites:
determining a lane ending of a lane of a route, the lane ending indicative of whether a vehicle is able to continue along the lane to a desired endpoint of the route;
determining, based at least in part on the lane ending, a lane ending cost;
determining a cost for a candidate trajectory based at least in part on the lane ending cost; and
determining a control trajectory for an autonomous vehicle based at least in part on the cost for the candidate trajectory.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitation(s) in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining that a route that includes to taking an exit; determining that the vehicle is in a different lane than the exit lane; determining costs for points in each lane; determining potential trajectories to the exit lane based on the determined costs; select a trajectory to change lanes to the exit lane.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract idea):
Claim 1 recites:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving a route for an autonomous vehicle to traverse through an environment, the route associated with a plurality of lanes;
determining, as a lane ending for a lane of the plurality of lanes and based at least in part on a desired endpoint, a position along the lane where the autonomous vehicle is unable to follow the lane to arrive at the desired endpoint;
determining, based at least in part on the lane ending, a lane ending cost associated with a portion of the lane, wherein the lane ending cost increases a cost of driving in the lane;
determining a cost for a candidate trajectory based at least in part on the lane ending cost;
determining a control trajectory for the autonomous vehicle, based at least in part on the cost for the candidate trajectory; and
controlling the autonomous vehicle based at least in part on the control trajectory.
Claim 6 recites:
determining a lane ending of a lane of a route, the lane ending indicative of whether a vehicle is able to continue along the lane to a desired endpoint of the route;
determining, based at least in part on the lane ending, a lane ending cost;
determining a cost for a candidate trajectory based at least in part on the lane ending cost; and
determining a control trajectory for an autonomous vehicle based at least in part on the cost for the candidate trajectory.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations, the examiner submits that these limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The step of receiving could be interpreted as an insignificant extra solution activity and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components for mere data gathering. The step of controlling the autonomous vehicle based at least in part on the control trajectory of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 13 and 20 could be interpreted as an insignificant extra solution activity and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components because the controlling, under broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of Applicant’s specification (see at least [0014]: a vehicle (such as an autonomous vehicle), [0070]: vehicle computing device 604 may include one or more system controllers 630, which may be configured to control steering, propulsion, braking, safety, emitters, communication, and other systems of the vehicle 602. The system controller(s) 630 may communicate with and/or control corresponding systems of the drive system(s) 614 and/or other components of the vehicle 602, [0078]: The vehicle 602 may also include one or more emitters 608 for emitting light and/or sound. The emitter(s) 608 may include interior audio and visual emitters to communicate with passengers of the vehicle 602…interior emitters may include…display screens), could be interpreted as displaying. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. The additional limitation steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data, transmitting signals, outputting data), and amounts to mere data gathering and storing and transmitting do not add a meaningful limitation to the process (MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754), which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. Accordingly additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP 2106, representative independent claim does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations do not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle environment. Also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, 15-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer components. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Moreover, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, 15-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claim.
Applicant’s specification appears to have support for controlling the steering, propulsion, and braking of the autonomous vehicle (see at least [0070]). For purposes of example only, it appears that incorporating controlling steering, propulsion, or braking of the autonomous vehicle based at least in part on the control trajectory could overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 10-11, 15, 17-18 is/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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation detecting a vehicle in the lane arriving at the desired endpoint; there is a lack of sufficient antecedent basis in the limitation “the lane arriving at the desired endpoint” because a lane of the plurality of lanes…unable to follow the lane to arrive at the desired endpoint was previously introduced. Further, it is unclear introducing a broader a vehicle when the narrower an autonomous vehicle was previously introduced.
Claims 7 and 15 recite the limitation “based at least in part on a relative position of the first lane, the second lane and the lane that arrives at the desired endpoint, the first lane ending cost is determined to be greater than the second lane ending cost”. There is a lack of sufficient antecedent basis for “the lane that arrives at the desired endpoint” in light of the independent claim reciting “determining a lane ending of a lane of a route, the lane ending indicative of whether a vehicle is able to continue along the lane to a desired endpoint of the route” and “the lane is a first lane associated with a first lane ending cost”.
Claims 10 and 11 recites the limitation detecting a vehicle that continues to the desired endpoint; however, it is unclear introducing a broader a vehicle when a vehicle and the narrower an autonomous vehicle were previously introduced.
Claims 17 and 18 recites the limitation detecting a vehicle in a lane that continues to the desired endpoint; however, it is unclear to whether “a lane” is a same or different lane than the previously introduced a lane of a route…whether a vehicle is able to continue along the lane to a desired endpoint of the route. Further, it is unclear introducing a broader a vehicle when a vehicle and the narrower an autonomous vehicle were previously introduced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6-8, 13-16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20230150508 (“Nimura”).
As per claim(s) 6, 14, Nimura discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
determining a lane ending of a lane of a route, the lane ending indicative of whether a vehicle is able to continue along the lane to a desired endpoint of the route (see at least [0042]: vehicle that can perform assistance travel by autonomous driving assistance, [0073]: CPU 51 sets the received recommended route as a guidance route of the navigation device 1);
determining, based at least in part on the lane ending, a lane ending cost (see at least [0104]: CPU 51 calculates, for each route, a total of lane costs, taking into account the set lane change locations, [0105]: lane cost is assigned to each lane link 76, [0106]: a lane link that travels in a lane located on the left side has a higher lane cost, [0108]: calculated lane change costs are added to a total value of lane costs);
determining a cost for a candidate trajectory based at least in part on the lane ending cost (see at least [0104]: S29, for the reference route and the candidate route which are generated at the above-described S25 and S26, and in which lane change locations are set at the above-described S27, and to which lane nodes and lane links are further added at the above-described S28, the CPU 51 calculates, for each route, a total of lane costs, taking into account the set lane change locations. Then, the total values of lane costs for each route are compared with each other, and a route with the minimum total value of lane costs is identified as a way of moving into a lane for the vehicle that is recommended when the vehicle moves, [0108]: calculated lane change costs are added to a total value of lane costs); and
determining a control trajectory for an autonomous vehicle based at least in part on the cost for the candidate trajectory (see at least [0085]: at S9, the CPU 51 computes the amounts of control for the vehicle to travel along the static travel path generated at the above-described S3 (when the dynamic travel path is reflected at the above-described S7, a path obtained after the reflection) at a speed in accordance with the speed plan created at the above-described S4 (when the speed plan is modified at the above-described S8, a plan obtained after the modification). Specifically, each of the amounts of control for an accelerator, a brake, a gear, and steering is computed).
As per claim(s) 7, 15, Nimura discloses wherein
the lane is a first lane associated with a first lane ending cost (see at least [0105]: a lane cost is assigned to each lane link 76, and at S29, a total value of lane costs of all lane links 76 included in each route is calculated, [0108]: the calculated lane change costs are added to a total value of lane costs, Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 13);
a second lane of the route is between the first lane and a lane that arrives at the desired endpoint, the second lane having a second lane ending (see at least [0095]: since the vehicle needs to turn right at the next intersection 72, the vehicle needs to move into the far right lane at the time of entering the intersection 72, [0105]: a lane cost is assigned to each lane link 76, and at S29, a total value of lane costs of all lane links 76 included in each route is calculated, [0108]: the calculated lane change costs are added to a total value of lane costs, Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 13);
the second lane of the route is associated with a second lane ending cost (see at least [0105]: a lane cost is assigned to each lane link 76, and at S29, a total value of lane costs of all lane links 76 included in each route is calculated, [0108]: the calculated lane change costs are added to a total value of lane costs, Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 13); and
based at least in part on a relative position of the first lane, the second lane and the lane that arrives at the desired endpoint, the first lane ending cost is determined to be greater than the second lane ending cost (see at least [0106]: in countries that drive on the right, a correction is made in a reverse manner such that a lane link that travels in a lane located on the left side has a higher lane cost).
As per claim(s) 8, 16, Nimura discloses wherein determining the lane ending cost is further based at least in part on a distance from a position associated with the lane ending cost to the lane ending (see at least [0105]: a lane cost assigned to each lane link 76 uses the length of each lane link 76 as a reference value…the reference value is corrected).
As per claim(s) 13, 20, Nimura discloses wherein the operations further comprise: controlling the autonomous vehicle based at least in part on the control trajectory (see at least [0086]: at S10, the CPU 51 reflects the amounts of control computed at S9. Specifically, the computed amounts of control are transmitted to the vehicle control ECU 40 through the CAN. The vehicle control ECU 40 performs vehicle control of each of the accelerator, brake, gear, and steering based on the received amounts of control).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230150508 (“Nimura”) in view of US 20250058780 (“Shoemaker”).
As per claim(s) 1, Nimura discloses a system comprising:
one or more processors (see at least [0062]: navigation ECU…CPU 51); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (see at least [0062]: internal storage devices):
receiving a route for an autonomous vehicle to traverse through an environment, the route associated with a plurality of lanes (see at least [0042]: vehicle that can perform assistance travel by autonomous driving assistance, [0073]: CPU 51 sets the received recommended route as a guidance route of the navigation device 1);
determining, as a lane ending for a lane of the plurality of lanes and based at least in part on a desired endpoint, a position along the lane where the autonomous vehicle is unable to follow the lane to arrive at the desired endpoint (see at least [0077]: at S3, the CPU 51 performs a static travel path generating process, [0095]: planned travel route shown in FIG. 7 is a route where after the vehicle travels straight ahead from its current location, the vehicle turns right at a next intersection 71, and further turns right at a next intersection 72, too, and turns left at a next intersection 73, [0096]: node point (hereinafter, referred to as lane node) 75 is set at a portion of each lane located at a boundary of each divided segment. Furthermore, a link (hereinafter, referred to as lane link) 76 that connects lane nodes 75 is set, [0102]: at S27, the CPU 51 performs a lane change location setting process (FIG. 16), [0107]: based on the premise that a lane change included in a route is a lane change made to pass through a divergence point, a lane change recommended location is set with reference to a divergence point that causes a lane change. Specifically, a lane change recommended location is determined by the road type of a road that enters a divergence point (i.e., the road type of a road on which a lane change is made));
determining, based at least in part on the lane ending, a lane ending cost associated with a portion of the lane (see at least [0104]: CPU 51 calculates, for each route, a total of lane costs, taking into account the set lane change locations, [0105]: lane cost is assigned to each lane link 76, [0106]: a lane link that travels in a lane located on the left side has a higher lane cost, [0108]: calculated lane change costs are added to a total value of lane costs);
determining a cost for a candidate trajectory based at least in part on the lane ending cost (see at least [0104]: S29, for the reference route and the candidate route which are generated at the above-described S25 and S26, and in which lane change locations are set at the above-described S27, and to which lane nodes and lane links are further added at the above-described S28, the CPU 51 calculates, for each route, a total of lane costs, taking into account the set lane change locations. Then, the total values of lane costs for each route are compared with each other, and a route with the minimum total value of lane costs is identified as a way of moving into a lane for the vehicle that is recommended when the vehicle moves, [0108]: calculated lane change costs are added to a total value of lane costs);
determining a control trajectory for the autonomous vehicle, based at least in part on the cost for the candidate trajectory (see at least [0085]: at S9, the CPU 51 computes the amounts of control for the vehicle to travel along the static travel path generated at the above-described S3 (when the dynamic travel path is reflected at the above-described S7, a path obtained after the reflection) at a speed in accordance with the speed plan created at the above-described S4 (when the speed plan is modified at the above-described S8, a plan obtained after the modification). Specifically, each of the amounts of control for an accelerator, a brake, a gear, and steering is computed); and
controlling the autonomous vehicle based at least in part on the control trajectory (see at least [0086]: at S10, the CPU 51 reflects the amounts of control computed at S9. Specifically, the computed amounts of control are transmitted to the vehicle control ECU 40 through the CAN. The vehicle control ECU 40 performs vehicle control of each of the accelerator, brake, gear, and steering based on the received amounts of control).
Nimura discloses a lane change cost equation wherein the lane change cost increases as the distance from the divergence point decreases (see at least [0107], Fig. 13: lane change location (first lane change), lane change location (second lane change), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the lane ending cost increases a cost of driving in the lane.
However, Shoemaker teaches determining, based at least in part on the lane ending, a lane ending cost associated with a portion of the lane, wherein the lane ending cost increases a cost of driving in the lane (see at least abstract: control autonomous vehicles, [0057]: certain regions of a lane may have a changing cost value along the length of the lane…the cost value for a lane can increase (e.g., in lock-step increments, in a gradient, etc.) in regions of the lane that precede a taper or end of the lane, [0065]: goal of the pathfinding algorithm is to determine a path through the roadway that minimizes the total cost of the regions traversed by the ego vehicle, while taking into account various constraints imposed on lane changing, [0071]: create a lane selection cost map for navigating the autonomous vehicle on a roadway, [0074]: utilize the lane selection cost map to determine an optimal path to travel to reach a predetermined destination, [0075]: responsive to a trajectory of the autonomous vehicle in an adjacent lane having a lower cost value than a trajectory of the autonomous vehicle in a current lane, the autonomous vehicle system can determine that the autonomous vehicle should change lanes based on the lane selection cost map generated in step 420, [0076]: The destination may be a predetermined location along the roadway (e.g., an off-ramp on a highway, etc.). The start point may be the current location of the autonomous vehicle, [0078]: roadway map 500A begins at five lanes, and narrows to a single lane. Because the left-most lane 505 is the furthest from what will be the only remaining lane, left-most lane 505 can have the highest density of cost values…the cost values in the left-most lane 505 start at 25 and increase to 125…each lane including the lane tapers 515, 520, and 525 include increasing cost values near to the respective lane taper 515, 520, and 525, [0081]: Fig. 6… example lane selection cost map 600 generated based on the cost values shown in Figs. 5A, 5B, and 5C).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Nimura by incorporating the teachings of Shoemaker with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine an optimal path to travel. The combination would yield predictable results.
As per claim(s) 2, Nimura discloses wherein
the lane is a first lane associated with a first lane ending cost (see at least [0105]: a lane cost is assigned to each lane link 76, and at S29, a total value of lane costs of all lane links 76 included in each route is calculated, [0108]: the calculated lane change costs are added to a total value of lane costs, Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 13);
a second lane of the route is between the first lane and a lane that arrives at the desired endpoint, the second lane having a second lane ending (see at least [0095]: since the vehicle needs to turn right at the next intersection 72, the vehicle needs to move into the far right lane at the time of entering the intersection 72, [0105]: a lane cost is assigned to each lane link 76, and at S29, a total value of lane costs of all lane links 76 included in each route is calculated, [0108]: the calculated lane change costs are added to a total value of lane costs, Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 13);
the second lane of the route is associated with a second lane ending cost (see at least [0105]: a lane cost is assigned to each lane link 76, and at S29, a total value of lane costs of all lane links 76 included in each route is calculated, [0108]: the calculated lane change costs are added to a total value of lane costs, Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 13); and
based at least in part on a relative position of the plurality of lanes, the first lane ending cost is determined to be greater than the second lane ending cost (see at least [0106]: in countries that drive on the right, a correction is made in a reverse manner such that a lane link that travels in a lane located on the left side has a higher lane cost).
As per claim(s) 3, 9, Nimura discloses wherein determining a cost is based at least in part on traffic information or obstacles in the environment associated with the lane (see at least [0054]: traffic information, [0082]: “factor that affects travel of the vehicle” is another vehicle traveling ahead of the vehicle (vehicle ahead), [0148]: S64, the CPU 51 obtains, for the affecting factor detected at the above-described S5, a location of the affecting factor at the present time and movement conditions, [0174]: CPU 51 compares the path costs for each travel path which are calculated at the above-described S72, and selects a travel path with the smallest value of the path cost as a travel path along which the vehicle is recommended to travel, [1076]: if it is determined that an avoidance path or a following path which is a dynamic travel path is selected at the above-described S73 (S74: YES), then processing transitions to S75, Fig. 22: generating dynamic travel path…avoidance, Fig. 27: travel path reflecting process) but does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the lane ending cost is further based at least in part on traffic information or obstacles in the environment associated with the lane.
However, Shoemaker teaches wherein determining the lane ending cost is further based at least in part on traffic information or obstacles in the environment associated with the lane (see at least [0080]: cost values generated by a component of the autonomous vehicle that detects traffic behavior on the roadway and generates cost values relating to the behavior (e.g., speed, location, direction, expected increase in speed, location, or direction, etc.) of vehicles on the roadway, [0081]: lane selection cost map 600 generated based on the cost values shown in FIGS. 5A, 5B, and 5C).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Nimura by incorporating the teachings of Shoemaker with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine an optimal path to travel. The combination would yield predictable results.
As per claim(s) 12, 19, Nimura discloses wherein: a continuing lane comprises a lane which reaches the desired endpoint (see at least [0077]: at S3, the CPU 51 performs a static travel path generating process, [0095]: planned travel route shown in FIG. 7 is a route where after the vehicle travels straight ahead from its current location, the vehicle turns right at a next intersection 71, and further turns right at a next intersection 72, too, and turns left at a next intersection 73, [0096]: node point (hereinafter, referred to as lane node) 75 is set at a portion of each lane located at a boundary of each divided segment. Furthermore, a link (hereinafter, referred to as lane link) 76 that connects lane nodes 75 is set, [0102]: at S27, the CPU 51 performs a lane change location setting process (FIG. 16), [0107]: based on the premise that a lane change included in a route is a lane change made to pass through a divergence point, a lane change recommended location is set with reference to a divergence point that causes a lane change. Specifically, a lane change recommended location is determined by the road type of a road that enters a divergence point (i.e., the road type of a road on which a lane change is made)).
Nimura discloses a lane change cost equation wherein the lane change cost increases as the distance from the divergence point decreases (see at least [0107], Fig. 13: lane change location (first lane change), lane change location (second lane change), but does not explicitly disclose the lane ending cost increases a cost of driving in the lane.
However, Shoemaker teaches the lane ending cost increases a cost of driving in the lane with respect to driving in the continuing lane (see at least abstract: control autonomous vehicles, [0057]: certain regions of a lane may have a changing cost value along the length of the lane…the cost value for a lane can increase (e.g., in lock-step increments, in a gradient, etc.) in regions of the lane that precede a taper or end of the lane, [0065]: goal of the pathfinding algorithm is to determine a path through the roadway that minimizes the total cost of the regions traversed by the ego vehicle, while taking into account various constraints imposed on lane changing, [0071]: create a lane selection cost map for navigating the autonomous vehicle on a roadway, [0074]: utilize the lane selection cost map to determine an optimal path to travel to reach a predetermined destination, [0075]: responsive to a trajectory of the autonomous vehicle in an adjacent lane having a lower cost value than a trajectory of the autonomous vehicle in a current lane, the autonomous vehicle system can determine that the autonomous vehicle should change lanes based on the lane selection cost map generated in step 420, [0076]: The destination may be a predetermined location along the roadway (e.g., an off-ramp on a highway, etc.). The start point may be the current location of the autonomous vehicle, [0078]: roadway map 500A begins at five lanes, and narrows to a single lane. Because the left-most lane 505 is the furthest from what will be the only remaining lane, left-most lane 505 can have the highest density of cost values…the cost values in the left-most lane 505 start at 25 and increase to 125…each lane including the lane tapers 515, 520, and 525 include increasing cost values near to the respective lane taper 515, 520, and 525, [0081]: Fig. 6… example lane selection cost map 600 generated based on the cost values shown in Figs. 5A, 5B, and 5C).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Nimura by incorporating the teachings of Shoemaker with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine an optimal path to travel. The combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nimura in view of Shoemaker, and further in view of US 20240067214 (“Nagasaka”) and US 20250002021 (“Fayad ‘021”).
As per claim(s) 4, Nimura does not explicitly disclose determining a queue of vehicles associated with the desired endpoint; modifying the lane ending cost based at least in part on a distance from the lane ending of the lane to a vehicle in the queue.
However, Shoemaker teaches the operations further comprise:
determining a queue of vehicles associated with the desired endpoint (see at least [0080]: cost values generated by a component of the autonomous vehicle that detects traffic behavior on the roadway and generates cost values relating to the behavior (e.g., speed, location, direction, expected increase in speed, location, or direction, etc.) of vehicles on the roadway…roadway map 500C, an example cost value of 75 has been generated in the right-most lane due to the detected slow traffic 540…detected traffic 540 is moving slowly in the right-most lane due to the five-lane roadway being reduced to a single lane, [0081]: lane selection cost map 600 generated based on the cost values shown in FIGS. 5A, 5B, and 5C).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Nimura by incorporating the teachings of Shoemaker with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine an optimal path to travel. The combination would yield predictable results.
However, Nagasaka teaches modifying the lane ending cost based at least in part on a distance from the lane ending of the lane to traffic in the queue (see at least [0103]: a starting point and an end point (traffic congestion length may be used instead of the end point) of a section having traffic congestion, [0108]: CPU 51 adds a traffic congestion cost to a lane cost of a lane link corresponding to the traffic congestion section among lane links included in the reconstructed lane network…addition of a traffic congestion cost to a lane cost is performed targeting four lane links 76 “A” to “D” corresponding to lanes having traffic congestion, and four lane links 76 “E” to “H” from which the vehicle moves into the lanes having traffic congestion, [0110]: a lane cost to which the above-described traffic congestion cost is to be added is provided for each lane link 76… length of the lane link (in units of meters) is used as the reference value of the lane cost…length from the starting point of the traffic congestion section (a point at which traffic congestion starts in a traveling direction) to a connecting point is used as a reference value of a lane cost, Fig. 13).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Nimura by incorporating the teachings of Nagasaka with a reasonable expectation of success in order to appropriately provide driving assistance based on a travel path taking into account traffic congestion conditions for each lane. The combination would yield predictable results.
However, Fayad ‘021 teaches modifying the lane ending cost based at least in part on a distance from an area of the lane ending of the lane to a vehicle in the queue (see at least [0011]: navigation command describes the fact that the vehicle is intended to be maneuvered from the second lane, across the first lane, to the exit ramp of the road, [0021]: respective trajectories or driving maneuvers can then be assessed for selecting the gap according to a cost function, [0022]: gaps in front of the vehicle in the direction of travel may have a higher priority than gaps which are beside the vehicle…costs of the trajectory, in the case of which the vehicle remains in the second lane, can be changed on the basis of the distance to the exit ramp. In particular, the costs may be increased with decreasing distance to the exit ramp, [0024]: probabilities of a successful lane change maneuver are respectively determined when searching for and/or selecting the gaps in the areas and, if the respective probability exceeds a limit value, there is a changeover to the next area according to the predetermined order, [0045]: near field 23, a mid field 24 and a far field 25 are defined in the surroundings 5 of the vehicle 1 for searching for the gaps 12 and for gap synchronization, [0046]: gaps 12 between the road users 13 in the first lane 17 can be detected in the mid field on the basis of the measurements using the environmental sensors 4…a lane-based abort distance 27 is defined for the respective lanes 17, 18, 19).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Nimura by incorporating the teachings of Fayad ‘021 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to assist a user of a vehicle during a lane change maneuver. The combinati