DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, 20 have been amended.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 21-23 have been added.
Response to Amendment
Objections to Specification: Applicant has submitted amendments that address the concerns with regards to the specification. The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101: The amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15 overcome the rejection of record. The rejection is withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103: Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended to change the scope of the claimed invention. Specifically, amended claim 1 recites “identifying potential target locations for a first vehicle; receiving sensor data from the first vehicle and the potential target locations; extracting context features about the first vehicle and the potential target locations from the sensor data; predicting, based at least on the context features, a target location action involving the first vehicle; selecting, from the potential target locations and based on the context features and the target action, a target location for the first vehicle”, which changes the scope of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103: Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection. Examiner relies on new reference Ramot et al. (US 20200104965 A1) to teach new limitations introduced to independent claims regarding “potential target locations”, “context features”, “a target location action”, and “selecting, from the potential target locations …, a target location”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: “breaking” should be changed to braking. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11, 15-16, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubie (US 11099583 B2) in view of Ramot et al. (US 20200104965 A1), Baek et al. (US 20220363254 A1), and Heinecke et al. (US 20190225213 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kubie teach A method of autonomous driving road space reservation and adaption, the method comprising:
a target location (see at least FIG. 5A: first route 504) for the first vehicle (see at least FIG. 5A, (43) column 10 lines 7-8: “a first autonomous vehicle”);
reserving road (see at least (9) column 2 line 15: “Autonomous vehicles, … not limited to aircraft”; (41) column 9 line 45: “a road”) space (see at least FIG. 5A, (43) column 9 line 67 – column 10 line 1: “a timed space reservation of the first route 504”) for the first vehicle at the target location;
communicating (see at least FIG. 4A step 408: “THE ROUTE DETERMINATION ENGINE TRANSMITS THE RESERVED ROUTE TO THE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE VIA A COMMUNICATION INTERFACE OF THE ROUTE RESERVATION SYSTEM”) the reserved road space of the first vehicle to a vehicle;
a second vehicle (see at least (43) column 10 line 9: “a second autonomous vehicle”);
adapting a driving plan (see at least FIG. 5A, (43) column 10 lines 6-7: “the detour route that avoids the conflict is indicated by a curved arrow 508”) of the second vehicle based on the communicated reserved road space of the first vehicle automatically before arrival (see at least FIG. 5A, column 9 line 65 – column 10 line 11: “timed space reservation of the second route 502 conflicts with a timed space reservation of the first route 504. … the route determination engine 306 may create a detour for the second route 502 to avoid the conflict. … the detour route that avoids the conflict is indicated by a curved arrow 508. … a second autonomous vehicle would travel horizontally along the second route 502, detouring along the curved path 508 to avoid the first route 504.”); and
based on the adapted driving plan, autonomously changing a trajectory of the second vehicle to avoid (see at least FIG. 5A, (43) column 10 lines 9-11: “a second autonomous vehicle would travel horizontally along the second route 502, detouring along the curved path 508 to avoid the first route 504”) the reserved road space.
However, Kubie does not explicitly teach identifying potential target locations for a first vehicle;
receiving sensor data from the first vehicle and the potential target locations;
extracting context features about the first vehicle and the potential target locations from the sensor data;
predicting, based at least on the context features, a target location action involving the first vehicle;
selecting, from the potential target locations and based on the context features and the target action, a target location for the first vehicle
to a second vehicle;
before an automated breaking feature distance is reached.
Ramot teach identifying potential target locations (see at least [0187], FIG. 10: routes 1010 and 1020) for a first vehicle (see at least FIG. 10: electrically-powered vehicle);
receiving sensor data from the first vehicle (see at least [0009]: “receive from the power sensor the current charge level of the battery”) and the potential target locations (see at least [0005]: “receive current occupancy data for the plurality of charging stations, wherein the current occupancy data includes a current capacity utilization for each charging point”);
extracting context features about the first vehicle (see at least [0005]: “the current battery-charge data is indicative of a driving distance in which each electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle can operate before charging”) and the potential target locations (see at least [0139]: “charging module 630 may determine an estimated time at which occupied charging points will become available”) from the sensor data;
predicting, based at least on the context features (see at least [0129]: “account for both battery-charge and charging station occupancies when assigning a vehicle to a charging station”), a target location action (see at least [0233]: “charging the battery”) involving the first vehicle;
selecting, from the potential target locations and based on the context features and the target location action, a target location (see at least [0187]: “select route 1010 over route 1020 based on one or more variables, such as current battery-charge of the vehicle, … current occupancy data for the charging stations”) for the first vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Ramot to select a target location from potential target locations based on vehicle and environmental sensor data. Doing so would help “to ensure the vehicle is charged and/or to improve efficiency of a fleet”, as recognized by Ramot in paragraph [0187].
Heinecke teach before an automated breaking feature distance is reached (see at least [0036]: “When the vehicle response determiner 208 determines that the hard-brake is avoidable (e.g., the vehicle 100 can avoid the object using adaptive steering), control of the program 300 proceeds to block 316. When the vehicle response determiner 208 determines that the hard-brake is not avoidable (e.g., an object is too close to the vehicle 100), control of the program 300 proceeds to block 318.”; FIG. 3 step 316: “USE ADAPATIVE STEERING TO STEER OUT OF HARD-BRAKE SITUATION”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Heinecke to maneuver around an upcoming obstacle when there is space to do so. Doing so would “maintain[] driver and/or passenger comfortability”, as recognized by Heinecke in paragraph [0010].
Baek teaches communicating the reserved road space of the first vehicle to a second (see at least [0017]: “the vehicle reserves sequential driving path positions to be changed through a V2X multi-virtual vehicle message and broadcasts to a neighboring vehicle that the sequential driving path points to be changed have been reserved.”) vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Baek to communicate vehicle to vehicle. Doing so would help in “preventing a collision accident with neighboring vehicles through communication”, as recognized by Baek in paragraph [0005].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke teach The method of claim 1.
Kubie further teach wherein the reserved road space is greater than or equal to the dimensions of the first vehicle (see at least (11) column 2 lines 51-53: “The timed space reservations are sized to accommodate both the vehicle 102 and a safety margin 104 around the vehicle 102.”), and wherein a scheduled time of the reserved road space is based on a dynamic (see at least (18) column 4 lines 33-35: “a route reservation system is augmented to automatically optimize and adjust routes for autonomous vehicles in real-time.”) estimated time of arrival (see at least (11) column 2 lines 45-46: “a given time period during which the vehicle 102 is expected to transit the area”) to the target location.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke teach The method of claim 1.
Kubie further teach wherein the communicated reserved road space is transmitted to the second vehicle via V2X communication (see at least FIG. 4B step 420: “THE ROUTE DETERMINATION ENGINE TRANSMITS THE NEW ROUTE TO THE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE VIA THE COMMUNICATION INTERFACE”).
Baek further teach V2X (see at least [0006]: “a V2X multi-virtual vehicle message”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Baek to communicate using V2X. Doing so would help in “preventing a collision accident with neighboring vehicles through communication”, as recognized by Baek in paragraph [0005].
Regarding claim 8, Kubie teach A computer program product (CPP) (FIG. 3: route reservation system 302) for autonomous driving road space reservation and adaption, the CPP comprising:
one or more computer-readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media capable of performing a method (see at least (2) column 1 lines 13-18: “a non-transitory computer-readable medium is provided. The computer-readable medium has computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors of one or more computing devices, cause the computing devices to perform actions for updating a reserved route for an autonomous vehicle”), the method comprising:
a target location (see at least FIG. 5A: first route 504) for the first vehicle (see at least FIG. 5A, (43) column 10 lines 7-8: “a first autonomous vehicle”);
reserving road (see at least (9) column 2 line 15: “Autonomous vehicles, … not limited to aircraft”; (41) column 9 line 45: “a road”) space (see at least FIG. 5A, (43) column 9 line 67 – column 10 line 1: “a timed space reservation of the first route 504”) for the first vehicle at the target location;
communicating (see at least FIG. 4A step 408: “THE ROUTE DETERMINATION ENGINE TRANSMITS THE RESERVED ROUTE TO THE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE VIA A COMMUNICATION INTERFACE OF THE ROUTE RESERVATION SYSTEM”) the reserved road space of the first vehicle to a vehicle;
a second vehicle (see at least (43) column 10 line 9: “a second autonomous vehicle”);
adapting a driving plan (see at least FIG. 5A, (43) column 10 lines 6-7: “the detour route that avoids the conflict is indicated by a curved arrow 508”) of the second vehicle based on the communicated reserved road space of the first vehicle automatically before arrival (see at least FIG. 5A, column 9 line 65 – column 10 line 11: “timed space reservation of the second route 502 conflicts with a timed space reservation of the first route 504. … the route determination engine 306 may create a detour for the second route 502 to avoid the conflict. … the detour route that avoids the conflict is indicated by a curved arrow 508. … a second autonomous vehicle would travel horizontally along the second route 502, detouring along the curved path 508 to avoid the first route 504.”); and
based on the adapted driving plan, autonomously changing a trajectory of the second vehicle to avoid (see at least FIG. 5A, (43) column 10 lines 9-11: “a second autonomous vehicle would travel horizontally along the second route 502, detouring along the curved path 508 to avoid the first route 504”) the reserved road space.
However, Kubie does not explicitly teach identifying potential target locations for a first vehicle;
receiving sensor data from the first vehicle and the potential target locations;
extracting context features about the first vehicle and the potential target locations from the sensor data;
predicting, based at least on the context features, a target location action involving the first vehicle;
selecting, from the potential target locations and based on the context features and the target action, a target location for the first vehicle
to a second vehicle;
before an automated breaking feature distance is reached.
Ramot teach identifying potential target locations (see at least [0187], FIG. 10: routes 1010 and 1020) for a first vehicle (see at least FIG. 10: electrically-powered vehicle);
receiving sensor data from the first vehicle (see at least [0009]: “receive from the power sensor the current charge level of the battery”) and the potential target locations (see at least [0005]: “receive current occupancy data for the plurality of charging stations, wherein the current occupancy data includes a current capacity utilization for each charging point”);
extracting context features about the first vehicle (see at least [0005]: “the current battery-charge data is indicative of a driving distance in which each electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle can operate before charging”) and the potential target locations (see at least [0139]: “charging module 630 may determine an estimated time at which occupied charging points will become available”) from the sensor data;
predicting, based at least on the context features (see at least [0129]: “account for both battery-charge and charging station occupancies when assigning a vehicle to a charging station”), a target location action (see at least [0233]: “charging the battery”) involving the first vehicle;
selecting, from the potential target locations and based on the context features and the target location action, a target location (see at least [0187]: “select route 1010 over route 1020 based on one or more variables, such as current battery-charge of the vehicle, … current occupancy data for the charging stations”) for the first vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Ramot to select a target location from potential target locations based on vehicle and environmental sensor data. Doing so would help “to ensure the vehicle is charged and/or to improve efficiency of a fleet”, as recognized by Ramot in paragraph [0187].
Heinecke teach before an automated breaking feature distance is reached (see at least [0036]: “When the vehicle response determiner 208 determines that the hard-brake is avoidable (e.g., the vehicle 100 can avoid the object using adaptive steering), control of the program 300 proceeds to block 316. When the vehicle response determiner 208 determines that the hard-brake is not avoidable (e.g., an object is too close to the vehicle 100), control of the program 300 proceeds to block 318.”; FIG. 3 step 316: “USE ADAPATIVE STEERING TO STEER OUT OF HARD-BRAKE SITUATION”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Heinecke to maneuver around an upcoming obstacle when there is space to do so. Doing so would “maintain[] driver and/or passenger comfortability”, as recognized by Heinecke in paragraph [0010].
Baek teaches communicating the reserved road space of the first vehicle to a second (see at least [0017]: “the vehicle reserves sequential driving path positions to be changed through a V2X multi-virtual vehicle message and broadcasts to a neighboring vehicle that the sequential driving path points to be changed have been reserved.”) vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Baek to communicate vehicle to vehicle. Doing so would help in “preventing a collision accident with neighboring vehicles through communication”, as recognized by Baek in paragraph [0005].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke teach The CPP of claim 8.
Kubie further teach wherein the reserved road space is greater than or equal to the dimensions of the first vehicle (see at least (11) column 2 lines 51-53: “The timed space reservations are sized to accommodate both the vehicle 102 and a safety margin 104 around the vehicle 102.”), and wherein a scheduled time of the reserved road space is based on a dynamic (see at least (18) column 4 lines 33-35: “a route reservation system is augmented to automatically optimize and adjust routes for autonomous vehicles in real-time.”) estimated time of arrival (see at least (11) column 2 lines 45-46: “a given time period during which the vehicle 102 is expected to transit the area”) to the target location.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke teach The CPP of claim 8.
Kubie further teach wherein the communicated reserved road space is transmitted to the second vehicle via V2X communication (see at least FIG. 4B step 420: “THE ROUTE DETERMINATION ENGINE TRANSMITS THE NEW ROUTE TO THE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE VIA THE COMMUNICATION INTERFACE”).
Baek further teach V2X (see at least [0006]: “a V2X multi-virtual vehicle message”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Baek to communicate using V2X. Doing so would help in “preventing a collision accident with neighboring vehicles through communication”, as recognized by Baek in paragraph [0005].
Regarding claim 15, Kubie teach A computer system (CS) (FIG. 3: route reservation system 302) for autonomous driving road space reservation and adaption, the CS comprising:
one or more computer processors, one or more computer-readable storage media, and program instructions stored on the one or more of the computer-readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors capable of performing a method (see at least (2) column 1 lines 13-18: “a non-transitory computer-readable medium is provided. The computer-readable medium has computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors of one or more computing devices, cause the computing devices to perform actions for updating a reserved route for an autonomous vehicle”), the method comprising:
a target location (see at least FIG. 5A: first route 504) for the first vehicle (see at least FIG. 5A, (43) column 10 lines 7-8: “a first autonomous vehicle”);
reserving road (see at least (9) column 2 line 15: “Autonomous vehicles, … not limited to aircraft”; (41) column 9 line 45: “a road”) space (see at least FIG. 5A, (43) column 9 line 67 – column 10 line 1: “a timed space reservation of the first route 504”) for the first vehicle at the target location;
communicating (see at least FIG. 4A step 408: “THE ROUTE DETERMINATION ENGINE TRANSMITS THE RESERVED ROUTE TO THE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE VIA A COMMUNICATION INTERFACE OF THE ROUTE RESERVATION SYSTEM”) the reserved road space of the first vehicle to a vehicle;
a second vehicle (see at least (43) column 10 line 9: “a second autonomous vehicle”);
adapting a driving plan (see at least FIG. 5A, (43) column 10 lines 6-7: “the detour route that avoids the conflict is indicated by a curved arrow 508”) of the second vehicle based on the communicated reserved road space of the first vehicle automatically before arrival (see at least FIG. 5A, column 9 line 65 – column 10 line 11: “timed space reservation of the second route 502 conflicts with a timed space reservation of the first route 504. … the route determination engine 306 may create a detour for the second route 502 to avoid the conflict. … the detour route that avoids the conflict is indicated by a curved arrow 508. … a second autonomous vehicle would travel horizontally along the second route 502, detouring along the curved path 508 to avoid the first route 504.”); and
based on the adapted driving plan, autonomously changing a trajectory of the second vehicle to avoid (see at least FIG. 5A, (43) column 10 lines 9-11: “a second autonomous vehicle would travel horizontally along the second route 502, detouring along the curved path 508 to avoid the first route 504”) the reserved road space.
However, Kubie does not explicitly teach identifying potential target locations for a first vehicle;
receiving sensor data from the first vehicle and the potential target locations;
extracting context features about the first vehicle and the potential target locations from the sensor data;
predicting, based at least on the context features, a target location action involving the first vehicle;
selecting, from the potential target locations and based on the context features and the target action, a target location for the first vehicle
to a second vehicle;
before an automated breaking feature distance is reached.
Ramot teach identifying potential target locations (see at least [0187], FIG. 10: routes 1010 and 1020) for a first vehicle (see at least FIG. 10: electrically-powered vehicle);
receiving sensor data from the first vehicle (see at least [0009]: “receive from the power sensor the current charge level of the battery”) and the potential target locations (see at least [0005]: “receive current occupancy data for the plurality of charging stations, wherein the current occupancy data includes a current capacity utilization for each charging point”);
extracting context features about the first vehicle (see at least [0005]: “the current battery-charge data is indicative of a driving distance in which each electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle can operate before charging”) and the potential target locations (see at least [0139]: “charging module 630 may determine an estimated time at which occupied charging points will become available”) from the sensor data;
predicting, based at least on the context features (see at least [0129]: “account for both battery-charge and charging station occupancies when assigning a vehicle to a charging station”), a target location action (see at least [0233]: “charging the battery”) involving the first vehicle;
selecting, from the potential target locations and based on the context features and the target location action, a target location (see at least [0187]: “select route 1010 over route 1020 based on one or more variables, such as current battery-charge of the vehicle, … current occupancy data for the charging stations”) for the first vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Ramot to select a target location from potential target locations based on vehicle and environmental sensor data. Doing so would help “to ensure the vehicle is charged and/or to improve efficiency of a fleet”, as recognized by Ramot in paragraph [0187].
Heinecke teach before an automated breaking feature distance is reached (see at least [0036]: “When the vehicle response determiner 208 determines that the hard-brake is avoidable (e.g., the vehicle 100 can avoid the object using adaptive steering), control of the program 300 proceeds to block 316. When the vehicle response determiner 208 determines that the hard-brake is not avoidable (e.g., an object is too close to the vehicle 100), control of the program 300 proceeds to block 318.”; FIG. 3 step 316: “USE ADAPATIVE STEERING TO STEER OUT OF HARD-BRAKE SITUATION”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Heinecke to maneuver around an upcoming obstacle when there is space to do so. Doing so would “maintain[] driver and/or passenger comfortability”, as recognized by Heinecke in paragraph [0010].
Baek teaches communicating the reserved road space of the first vehicle to a second (see at least [0017]: “the vehicle reserves sequential driving path positions to be changed through a V2X multi-virtual vehicle message and broadcasts to a neighboring vehicle that the sequential driving path points to be changed have been reserved.”) vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Baek to communicate vehicle to vehicle. Doing so would help in “preventing a collision accident with neighboring vehicles through communication”, as recognized by Baek in paragraph [0005].
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke teach The CS of claim 15.
Kubie further teach wherein the reserved road space is greater than or equal to the dimensions of the first vehicle (see at least (11) column 2 lines 51-53: “The timed space reservations are sized to accommodate both the vehicle 102 and a safety margin 104 around the vehicle 102.”), and wherein a scheduled time of the reserved road space is based on a dynamic (see at least (18) column 4 lines 33-35: “a route reservation system is augmented to automatically optimize and adjust routes for autonomous vehicles in real-time.”) estimated time of arrival (see at least (11) column 2 lines 45-46: “a given time period during which the vehicle 102 is expected to transit the area”) to the target location.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke teach The CS of claim 15.
Kubie further teach wherein the communicated reserved road space is transmitted to the second vehicle via V2X communication (see at least FIG. 4B step 420: “THE ROUTE DETERMINATION ENGINE TRANSMITS THE NEW ROUTE TO THE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE VIA THE COMMUNICATION INTERFACE”).
Baek further teach V2X (see at least [0006]: “a V2X multi-virtual vehicle message”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Baek to communicate using V2X. Doing so would help in “preventing a collision accident with neighboring vehicles through communication”, as recognized by Baek in paragraph [0005].
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke teaches The method of claim 1.
Ramot further teaches wherein the context features comprise an action (see at least [0233]: “charging the battery”) to be taken by the first vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Ramot to consider an action to be taken by the vehicle as a context feature. Doing so would help “to ensure the vehicle is charged and/or to improve efficiency of a fleet”, as recognized by Ramot in paragraph [0187].
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubie (US 11099583 B2) in view of Ramot et al. (US 20200104965 A1), Baek et al. (US 20220363254 A1), Heinecke et al. (US 20190225213 A1), and Pal et al. (US 20190009713 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke teach The method of claim 2.
Kubie further teach wherein the reserved road space includes a buffer zone (see at least (11) column 2 lines 51-53: “The timed space reservations are sized to accommodate both the vehicle 102 and a safety margin 104 around the vehicle 102.”).
However, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke does not explicitly teach the width of an open car door of the first vehicle.
Pal teach the width (see at least [0035]: “a minimum safe distance at which parking vehicles, such as the second vehicle 104, may be safely parked at a parking space adjacent to the first vehicle 102a. In accordance with an embodiment, the minimum safe distance may be determined based on … margins for opening vehicle doors of the first vehicle 102a”) of an open car door of the first vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Pal to include a buffer zone the width of an open car door. Doing so would ensure “that the parking vehicle are appropriately parked in the parking area”, as recognized by Pal in paragraph [0004].
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke teach The CPP of claim 9.
Kubie further teach wherein the reserved road space includes a buffer zone (see at least (11) column 2 lines 51-53: “The timed space reservations are sized to accommodate both the vehicle 102 and a safety margin 104 around the vehicle 102.”).
However, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke does not explicitly teach the width of an open car door of the first vehicle.
Pal teach the width (see at least [0035]: “a minimum safe distance at which parking vehicles, such as the second vehicle 104, may be safely parked at a parking space adjacent to the first vehicle 102a. In accordance with an embodiment, the minimum safe distance may be determined based on … margins for opening vehicle doors of the first vehicle 102a”) of an open car door of the first vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Pal to include a buffer zone the width of an open car door. Doing so would ensure “that the parking vehicle are appropriately parked in the parking area”, as recognized by Pal in paragraph [0004].
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke teach The CS of claim 16.
Kubie further teach wherein the reserved road space includes a buffer zone (see at least (11) column 2 lines 51-53: “The timed space reservations are sized to accommodate both the vehicle 102 and a safety margin 104 around the vehicle 102.”).
However, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke does not explicitly teach the width of an open car door of the first vehicle.
Pal teach the width (see at least [0035]: “a minimum safe distance at which parking vehicles, such as the second vehicle 104, may be safely parked at a parking space adjacent to the first vehicle 102a. In accordance with an embodiment, the minimum safe distance may be determined based on … margins for opening vehicle doors of the first vehicle 102a”) of an open car door of the first vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Pal to include a buffer zone the width of an open car door. Doing so would ensure “that the parking vehicle are appropriately parked in the parking area”, as recognized by Pal in paragraph [0004].
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubie (US 11099583 B2) in view of Ramot et al. (US 20200104965 A1), Baek et al. (US 20220363254 A1), Heinecke et al. (US 20190225213 A1), and Liu et al. (CN 105781275 A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke teach The method of claim 5.
Kubie further teaches further comprising adapting (see at least FIG. 5B, (44) column 10 lines 15-20: “the first route 504 has been updated such that its second illustrated timed space reservation and its third illustrated timed space reservation no longer pose a conflict for the second route 502. This may occur for any reason, including but not limited to the first route 502 having been altered in response to detecting a route alteration state.”) a driving plan of the first vehicle based on the autonomously changed trajectory of the second vehicle.
However, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke does not explicitly teach wherein the adapted driving plan of the first vehicle includes overriding an autonomous door locking feature of the first vehicle despite sensor detection of the second vehicle in the vicinity.
Liu teach wherein the adapted driving plan of the first vehicle includes overriding an autonomous door locking feature of the first vehicle despite sensor detection of the second vehicle in the vicinity (see at least [0052]: “if there is an obstacle exceeding the preset speed threshold, it is detected whether the unlocked door is on the same side as the obstacle. … if not, the door is unlocked”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Liu to unlock a door even if a vehicle is in the vicinity. Doing so would “improve the judgement accuracy”, as recognized by Liu in paragraph [0052].
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke teach The CPP of claim 12.
Kubie further teaches further comprising adapting (see at least FIG. 5B, (44) column 10 lines 15-20: “the first route 504 has been updated such that its second illustrated timed space reservation and its third illustrated timed space reservation no longer pose a conflict for the second route 502. This may occur for any reason, including but not limited to the first route 502 having been altered in response to detecting a route alteration state.”) a driving plan of the first vehicle based on the autonomously changed trajectory of the second vehicle.
However, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke does not explicitly teach wherein the adapted driving plan of the first vehicle includes overriding an autonomous door locking feature of the first vehicle despite sensor detection of the second vehicle in the vicinity.
Liu teach wherein the adapted driving plan of the first vehicle includes overriding an autonomous door locking feature of the first vehicle despite sensor detection of the second vehicle in the vicinity (see at least [0052]: “if there is an obstacle exceeding the preset speed threshold, it is detected whether the unlocked door is on the same side as the obstacle. … if not, the door is unlocked”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Liu to unlock a door even if a vehicle is in the vicinity. Doing so would “improve the judgement accuracy”, as recognized by Liu in paragraph [0052].
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke teach The CS of claim 19.
Kubie further teaches further comprising adapting (see at least FIG. 5B, (44) column 10 lines 15-20: “the first route 504 has been updated such that its second illustrated timed space reservation and its third illustrated timed space reservation no longer pose a conflict for the second route 502. This may occur for any reason, including but not limited to the first route 502 having been altered in response to detecting a route alteration state.”) a driving plan of the first vehicle based on the autonomously changed trajectory of the second vehicle.
However, the combination Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke does not explicitly teach wherein the adapted driving plan of the first vehicle includes overriding an autonomous door locking feature of the first vehicle despite sensor detection of the second vehicle in the vicinity.
Liu teach wherein the adapted driving plan of the first vehicle includes overriding an autonomous door locking feature of the first vehicle despite sensor detection of the second vehicle in the vicinity (see at least [0052]: “if there is an obstacle exceeding the preset speed threshold, it is detected whether the unlocked door is on the same side as the obstacle. … if not, the door is unlocked”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Liu to unlock a door even if a vehicle is in the vicinity. Doing so would “improve the judgement accuracy”, as recognized by Liu in paragraph [0052].
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubie (US 11099583 B2) in view of Ramot et al. (US 20200104965 A1), Baek et al. (US 20220363254 A1), Heinecke et al. (US 20190225213 A1), and Xu et al. (US 20220048513 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke teach The method of claim 2.
However, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke does not explicitly teach wherein the adapted driving plan of the second vehicle includes disabling an autonomous braking feature of the second vehicle when the reserved road space does not overlap a lane of travel.
Xu teach wherein the adapted driving plan of the second vehicle includes disabling an autonomous braking feature of the second vehicle when the reserved road space does not overlap a lane of travel (see at least [0092]: “In one embodiment, the ego vehicle 102 may be autonomously operated to track the planned trajectory to smoothly merge from the current lane 210 to the target lane 212 without any overlap between the path of the ego vehicle 102 and the paths of neighboring vehicles 202-208. The smooth merge of the ego vehicle 102 may include merging … by avoiding … sudden braking”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Xu to SecondaryFeatures. Doing so would “promote[] navigational and/or passenger comfort”, as recognized by Xu in paragraph [0092].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke teach The CPP of claim 9.
However, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke does not explicitly teach wherein the adapted driving plan of the second vehicle includes disabling an autonomous braking feature of the second vehicle when the reserved road space does not overlap a lane of travel.
Xu teach wherein the adapted driving plan of the second vehicle includes disabling an autonomous braking feature of the second vehicle when the reserved road space does not overlap a lane of travel (see at least [0092]: “In one embodiment, the ego vehicle 102 may be autonomously operated to track the planned trajectory to smoothly merge from the current lane 210 to the target lane 212 without any overlap between the path of the ego vehicle 102 and the paths of neighboring vehicles 202-208. The smooth merge of the ego vehicle 102 may include merging … by avoiding … sudden braking”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Xu to SecondaryFeatures. Doing so would “promote[] navigational and/or passenger comfort”, as recognized by Xu in paragraph [0092].
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubie (US 11099583 B2) in view of Ramot et al. (US 20200104965 A1), Baek et al. (US 20220363254 A1), Heinecke et al. (US 20190225213 A1), and Pan et al. (US 11656093 B2).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke teaches The method of claim 1.
However, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke does not explicitly teach wherein the reserved road space includes a buffer zone determined based on the target location action.
Pan teaches wherein the reserved road space (see at least (48) column 9 lines 25-30: “if an occlusion will prevent the AV from stopping in the any portion of the PDZ (502:YES), then at 504 the AV's motion planning system may use perception data about the PDZ to identify one or more stopping locations that are either within or outside of the PDZ.”) includes a buffer zone (see at least (47) column 9 lines 8-10: “vehicles or other objects are positioned in front of and behind the PDZ in locations that do not provide the PDZ with sufficient space to move into the PDZ”) determined based on the target location action.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Pan to include a buffer zone based on a target location action. Doing so would reduce “the burden that the AV stop may place on other vehicles that are moving near the pickup/drop-off location”, as recognized by Pan in (47) column 4 lines 38-40.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke teaches The method of claim 1.
However, the combination of Kubie, Ramot, Baek, and Heinecke does not explicitly teach wherein the target location action includes opening a door of the first vehicle.
Pan teaches wherein the target location action includes opening a door (see at least (47) column 9 lines 13-16: “the curb adjacent to the PDZ includes a fire hydrant, mailbox, signpost or other object positioned in a location that will interfere with swinging the door of the vehicle open at that location”) of the first vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kubie to incorporate the teachings of Pan to consider a door opening as a target location action. Doing so would reduce “the burden that the AV stop may place on other vehicles that are moving near the pickup/drop-off location”, as recognized by Pan in (47) column 4 lines 38-40.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baek et al. (US 20220343760 A1) teaches a system that communicates path change reservations using V2X messages (see at least paragraph [0005]).
Eidehall et al. (US 8762043 B2) teaches a system that determines if a collision is imminent if two vehicles are within a certain lateral distance of each other, based on vehicle widths (see at least (19) column 3 lines 18-27).
Kanematsu et al. (US 20190010735 A1) teaches a system that allows for manual override of a locking mechanism for a vehicle even if danger is detected outside the vehicle (see at least paragraph [0042]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE ALCORN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30 am – 6:30 pm est.
Examiner Interview 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/GEORGE A ALCORN III/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662