DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed January 22, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14, 17, and 18 have been amended. The remaining claims are in original or previously presented form. Therefore, claims 1-19 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 17 are the independent claims.
The Remarks filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered. The applicant argues under the heading “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” that claims 1, 8, and 17 have been amended to overcome the written description rejection given in the last detailed action, which was the Non-Final Rejection dated October 22, 2025. The examiner notes that “at least one of” and “or any combination thereof” has been removed from claims 1 and 17.
Claim 1 now recites determining “a driving state of the other vehicle based on…the sound of the other vehicle and…at least one of the moving path of the host vehicle or the expected moving path of the host vehicle”. Claim 8 now recites determining “the driving state of the other vehicle based on…at least one of the expected moving path of the host vehicle, the moving path of the host vehicle, or any combination thereof and…a moving path of the sound”. Both claims determine the driving state of the other vehicle (reasonably including position) based in part on the actual or expected moving path of the host vehicle. The difference between the claims is at least that claim 1 recites also using “the sound of the other vehicle” while claim 8 recites using “a moving path of the sound”.
The examiner accepts these amendments and withdraws the written description rejection.
The applicant further argues, under the heading “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b),” that claims 1 and 17 have been amended to overcome the indefiniteness rejection given in the last detailed action. The examiner accepts the amendments and withdraws the rejection.
The applicant further argues, under the heading “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103,” that claim 1 as currently amended is not taught by the prior art or record, including Schmitt et al. (US2023/0063047) and Neolix (CN111409644A). In particular, the applicant argues on page 9 of the Remarks that Schmitt does not teach “determining a driving state of the other vehicle as recited in claim 1.” The applicant argues that Schmitt describes estimating the location of a siren sound source “merely to estimate the location of the emergency vehicle,” whereas the Schmitt “does not determine a driving state of the emergency vehicle based on a sound of the emergency vehicle.” Emphases in original.
In the last detailed action’s rejection of claim 1, the examiner wrote that “in the present published disclosure, Kim (US2024/0359684 A1), paragraph 0048 teaches that “The driving state of the emergency vehicle may include the position of the emergency vehicle and the moving path of the emergency vehicle.” The examiner thinks that a “driving state” can be just a position and therefore, Schmitt teaches estimating the driving state of the emergency vehicle.
Yet a bigger argument could be made that Schmitt does not teach, as claim 1 of the present application does, determining “a moving path of the other vehicle.” The applicant makes this argument in the fourth line of page 10 of the Remarks. Schmitt focuses a lot on determining the location of the emergency vehicle. The implication in some sections of the disclosure is that the emergency vehicles have already arrived at the emergency scene and have parked along the side of the road. Yet Schmitt also teaches, such as in paragraph 0124, that other vehicles nearby will pull over to the side of the road based on detecting the sirens or lights of the emergency vehicle. As also taught in paragraph 0029, a host vehicle can determine “the presence and location of emergency vehicles” and then yield or move over. The host vehicle can also determine the “agent states (e.g. position, velocity, heading)” of agents operating in the environment of the host vehicle and determine if they will slow down or merge away from the emergency vehicle. Paragraph 0004 teaches that “In a typical vehicle operating environment, it is likely that the [host] autonomous vehicle will confront an emergency vehicle,” such an ambulance “behind the [host] vehicle”. Schmitt writes that “If the emergency vehicle is behind the vehicle, the vehicle operated is required to yield to the emergency vehicle.” These paragraphs suggest that the host vehicle in Schmitt not only knows the location of an emergency vehicle but can also recognize when an emergency vehicle is approaching from behind and can then pull over for it. Thus, the host vehicle knows “the moving path” of the emergency vehicle.
What makes this most convincing, in the examiner’s view, is that Schmitt teaches in paragraph 0026 “tracking the emergency vehicle based on the location of the emergency vehicle”. The word tracking in the art means continuously obtaining that “location” over time. It is in the context of “tracking the emergency vehicle” that Schmitt teaches in paragraph 0029 that the “perception module” and other components of the host vehicle can determine “agent states” including “position, velocity, heading”. This determination applies to “other vehicles,” such as non-emergency vehicles, but the determination is “not limited” to that. This means that it can apply to emergency vehicles. These two paragraphs together strongly indicate that Schmitt determines not just the location but also the trajectory of the emergency vehicle. Determining “velocity” requires more than one position measurement over time, and the “tracking” implies exactly that. “Heading” implies the direction of the position change.
Thus, Schmitt teaches a system that can recognize that an emergency vehicle is not only “behind” the host vehicle but also approaching the host vehicle from behind. The system then concludes the host vehicle needs to pull over to allow the emergency vehicle to pass. This is a reasonable interpretation of the disclosure of Schmitt and one that is supported by the paragraphs just cited. Therefore, the examiner respectfully maintains the anticipation rejection of claim 1 in the last detailed action, which itself was based on an interpretation of the claim for examination purposes.
The examiner also wonders how reasonable it is to conclude that the host vehicle in Schmitt does not know the “moving path of the other vehicle,” as recited in claim 1, when the host vehicle is Schmitt detects an ambulance behind it and then yields to it by pulling over. Paragraph 0125 teaches that the system in Schmitt can determine a “range rate” of the emergency vehicle, and paragraph 0126 teaches that the system can determine a “range, range rate, azimuth, etc.” The teaching of a range, range rate, and azimuth at least very strongly implies that the system can detect the moving path of the emergency vehicle. This is also strongly suggested by the teaching in paragraphs 0029 and paragraph 0124 that the host vehicle will pull over when an emergency vehicle is detected as behind the host vehicle.
It seems unreasonable to the examiner to interpret Schmitt as teaching that the system disclosed will cause the host vehicle to pull over when an emergency vehicle is detected as being behind and moving away from the host vehicle. The system realizes that the emergency vehicle is behind and approaching the host vehicle. So the host vehicle pulls over. It seems to the a reasonable interpretation of Schmitt is that it teaches a system that detects an ambulance behind the host vehicle and then commands the vehicle to pull over. This is implied beyond a preponderance of the evidence. The disclosure of Schmitt teaches that the host vehicle knows the range rate and heading (azimuth) of the ambulance, it knows it is behind the host vehicle, it is “tracking” the emergency vehicle, knows its “velocity” and “heading,” and pulls over to let the emergency vehicle pass when necessary. The examiner respectfully thinks that this meets the present claim limitation of determining “a moving path of the other vehicle”.
The examiner also notes that he cited Pinl (DE102018121312A1), in the last detailed action, which teaches on page 3 of the previously attached English translation, an autonomous vehicle that can detect “doppler shifted siren sounds.” The analysis of the “doppler shift,” according to page 4, indicates “an approaching emergency vehicle”. In response, according to page 5, the host vehicle will pull “to the right.” The examiner views this as obviously combining with Schmitt at least because Schmitt teaches determining a range rate and an approaching emergency vehicle coming from behind the host vehicle. This seems especially convincing to the examiner because paragraph 0110 of Schmitt teaches determining the location of the siren using TOA, TDO, and DOA, which strongly suggest the doppler shift taught by Pinl.
See also Ferguson et al. (U.S. 8,676,427).
Please see the rejections below. Due to new art and rejections the examiner goes second non-final.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
New drawings of Fig. 12 or an explanation of the drawings are respectfully required. In the present disclosure, Fig. 12 represents a “secondary determination” in case the method of Fig. 11 fails. In Fig. 12, a NO out of Fig. 12, step S250 means that the emergency vehicle is in front of the host vehicle. Once that is determined, a new question arises. It could be that the emergency vehicle in front of the host vehicle is driving in the same direction as the host vehicle. In that case, the relative speeds of the vehicles would determine if the two are going to get closer together or further apart over time. But if the emergency vehicle in front of the host vehicle is driving in the opposite direction as the host vehicle, then the two vehicles will definitely get closer together. But that is not what the method appears to really be interested in.
After a NO out of S250 step S290 asks if the “expected driving path of the host vehicle is opposite the moving path direction of the sound?” It would seem that if the answer is YES than it would be understood that the two vehicles are approaching each other, because a NO out of S250 already determined that the emergency vehicle is in front of the host vehicle. It would seem that if the answer to S290 was NO then, as discussed in the previous paragraph, relative speeds would come into play. But it seems the method is getting at something different than the examiner thinks.
According to the method, if the answer is YES in S290, meaning that, not only is the emergency vehicle in front of the host vehicle (NO in S250), but the direction of the driving direction of the host vehicle and the moving path of the siren have opposite directions (YES in S290), then the system determines if the relative speed is above a threshold in S300. If the relative speed is above a threshold speed the system moves to S310 and concludes that the emergency vehicle is “approaching the host vehicle.” It seems that this was already established way back in S290 with a YES out of that step. Does this “approaching” mean that the two vehicles are getting closer? It appears that way. An any case, if the relative speed is less than the threshold the system moves to S320 and concludes that “the host vehicle is determined as approaching emergency vehicle in back of emergency vehicle”.
It seems to the examiner that perhaps what this section of Fig. 12 is trying to determine is whether or not the emergency vehicle is driving toward the host vehicle or if the emergency vehicle is stopped on the side of the road and it is the host vehicle that is approaching the emergency vehicle. In the former case, the host vehicle may want to pull over and stop. In the latter, the host vehicle may want to do the opposite—move away from the shoulder, change to the far lane, and keep driving around the emergency vehicle. Or the host vehicle may not need to do anything because the emergency vehicle is in the opposite lane, as suggested in paragraph 0118.
It seems to the examiner that S310 and S320 are not written that well. Emergency vehicles sometimes drive the wrong way down the street, so it’s a little confusing to conclude in S310 that the emergency vehicle is approaching the host vehicle “on opposite lane”. But this is not a rejection issue. The disclosure does teach being able to tell the lane the emergency vehicle is in. Meanwhile, S320 concludes that the host vehicle is “approaching emergency vehicle in back of emergency vehicle”. So a YES in S290 means the sound of the emergency vehicle and the driving path of the host vehicle are opposite. But S320 concludes that the host vehicle is approaching the emergency vehicle “in back of the emergency vehicle”. In the examiner’s view, this can only mean that the emergency vehicle is stopped, and that it’s orientation is such that its “back” is facing the front of the host vehicle.
Paragraph 0117 teaches that generally if the relative speed is increased than the vehicles are driving in opposite directions as compared to when they are driving in the same direction. Thus, the paragraph states, that in S310, the processor determines that the two vehicles are approaching. Paragraph 0119 teaches that in S320 the system “may determine that the emergency vehicle E is driving while approaching in back of the host vehicle 10.” This is actually the opposite of the label of S320 in Fig. 12. The drawings are rejected for this reason.
Furthermore, how can the system determine that the emergency vehicle is coming up from behind the host vehicle in S320 when it was already determined with a NO out of S250 that the emergency vehicle is not in back of the host vehicle? Does S320 override S250? The two conclusions seem to contradict each other. This is a second drawing rejection. These drawings relate to some of the claims, which makes this issue matter even more.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 5, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 lacks written description. It recites:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine that the other vehicle is driving on a lane the same as a lane on which the host vehicle is driving, based on determining that
i) a difference between a time for the sound to reach the first sensor and a time for the sound to reach the second sensor is less than or equal to athreshold value and
ii) a difference between a time for the sound to reach the third sensor and a time for the sound to reach the fourth sensor is less than or equal to the threshold value.
In the present published disclosure, paragraph 0121 teaches determining that the host vehicle is on the same lane as the emergency vehicle. But the paragraph does not say that thresholds are involved in this determination. Paragraph 0016 teaches determining that both vehicles are on the same lane using a time difference and a “first specific value”. Paragraph 0067 elaborates on the teaching of a specific value. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted with the present amended language except the replacements of “first specific” with “threshold”. In other words, the claim will be interpreted with amendments to the solid bullet but without the amendments to the two hollow bullets.
Claim 5 lacks written description. The claim recites:
The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine that the other vehicle is driving on a second lane different from a first lane on which the host vehicle is driving,based on determining that
i) the difference between the time for the sound to reach the first sensor[[,]] and the time for the sound to reach the second sensor exceeds the threshold value and
ii) the difference between the time for the sound to reach the third sensor and the time for the sound to reach the fourth sensor exceeds thethreshold value.
Paragraph 0099 of the present published disclosure does not discuss a threshold. Rather it discusses a “first specific value”. Thresholds in the disclosure are only related to speeds of vehicles, not times or time differences of sounds. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted with the present amended language except the replacements of “first specific” with “threshold”. In other words, the claim will be interpreted with amendments to the solid bullet but without the amendments to the two hollow bullets.
Claims 9-15 are rejected for replacing the phrase “when it is determined” with the phrase “based on determining that”. The “when it is determined” is in the original disclosure and refers to moving to the next step of a method. The phrase “based on determining that” is not in the original disclosure in the context of what is claimed, is new matter, and implies that the determination is “based on” what went before it in the claim, which lacks written description.
For example, claim 9 as written recites:
The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine whether the moving path of the host vehicle is the same as the moving path of the soundzbased on determining that the other vehicle is driving in back of the host vehicle.
But the system does not determine whether the moving path of the host vehicle is the same as the moving path of the sound…based on” determining that the other vehicle is driving in back of the host vehicle. There is nothing disclosed that shows how a system could determine that a vehicle is moving on the same path “based on” the vehicle being in back of the host vehicle. The examiner is weary of claim creep and later interpretation.
For examination, these claims will be interpreted as if the phrase had not been amended. And the “when it is determined” will be interpreted as meaning: after it is determined.
As another example, claim 12 recites:
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine whether relative speed of the other vehicle is greater than or equal to a threshold speed,based on determining that the moving path of the host vehicle is opposite to the moving path of the sound.
In its original form, this reasonably meant: “when it is determined that the moving path of the host vehicle is opposite to the moving path of the sound” then next “determine whether relative speed of the other vehicle is greater than or equal to a threshold speed”.
Claim 12 lacks written description for another reason. The claim recites:
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine whether [the] relative speed of the other vehicle is greater than or equal to a threshold speed based on determining that the moving path of the host vehicle is opposite to the moving path of the sound.
What is the “threshold speed” here? When it is determined in Fig. 12, S250 that the emergency vehicle is ahead of the host vehicle, the system will determine in S290 whether the emergency vehicle is driving away from the host vehicle or towards it. A YES out of S290 means that the host vehicle and the path of the sound are in “opposite” directions,” apparently meaning the host vehicle and the sound in front of the host vehicle are getting closer together. S300 then checks if the relative speed “of the other vehicle,” as added in the present claim, is greater than or equal to a threshold. If it is, then the system concludes that the two vehicles are “approaching”. If the speed of their approach is greater than the speed of the host vehicle then they are approaching each other. But is the threshold speed in the claim the speed of the host vehicle or the emergency vehicle? The examiner does not see that anywhere in the disclosure. If not, what is it?
One response the applicant could potentially make that might be persuasive is to say that the claim is really just saying that “when it is determined that…” (meaning, after the cited determination of determining the moving path of the host vehicle is opposite to the moving path of the sound) then the system takes the step claimed, which is “determine whether [the] relative speed of the other vehicle is greater than or equal to a threshold speed”. In other words, the argument could be that the claim is claiming a step after another step, and not claiming a particular conclusion, such as that the vehicles are approaching each other. But this still does not explain what the threshold value is.
For examination purposes, claim 12 will be interpreted as if it had not been amended. The term “threshold speed” will be interpreted as some “threshold speed” that is apparently predetermined or set by the controller as a threshold.
One close prior art is Ferguson et al. (U.S. 8,676,427). But Ferguson does not teach comparing a threshold speed to the relative speed of the vehicle. Ferguson does not mention a threshold speed in this context. Ferguson teaches determining that “an emergency vehicle…is approaching the [host] vehicle 100 from ahead,” according to col. 8, lines 11-12. In response, the host vehicle can, according to col. 11, lines 1-4, “slow down and pull over”. The system will “update the driving path dynamically while the vehicle 100 is in operation,” according to col. 6, lines 19-27. Ferguson in col. 3, line 2, teaches using audio analysis to determine the “speed of another vehicle”. But Ferguson does not explicitly teach determining that this speed is “Greater than or equal to a threshold speed”. Because Ferguson can determine the “speed of another vehicle” in col. 3, line 2,” a direction of audio “relative to” the host vehicle in col. 9, line 19, the speed of the host vehicle in col. 5, line 26, and if the vehicles are “approaching the [host] vehicle from ahead” in col. 8, lines 11-12, it is very likely that Ferguson does use a threshold set to the speed of the host vehicle to determine approach. Furthermore, Ferguson teaches in col. 9, lines 27-34 gathering audio data at different times to determine a direction of the audio source “with respect to the [host] vehicle.” Changes in amplitude over time can indicate the audio source “is approaching”.
Thus, if the threshold speed is one of the vehicle speeds, then Ferguson might relate to the claim.
Present claims 13 and 14 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 12.
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 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmitt et al. (US2023/0063047 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schmitt discloses:
An apparatus for controlling a host vehicle (see Fig. 2, item 120), the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to acquire a sound of another vehicle (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0105 for the audio interface 601 that receives sound. See also paragraph 0102. See paragraph 0110 for using microphones “placed at different locations around the [host] vehicle” to detect a siren.);
a position acquiring device configured to acquire a moving path and an expected moving path of the host vehicle (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0095 for a perception module 402, planning module 404, and localization module 408. See paragraph 0096 for the planning module generating the future trajectory of the host vehicle and the localization module determining the current position of the host vehicle. See also paragraph 0098.);
one or more processors (see Fig. 3, item 304.); and
a memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (see Fig. 3, item 306, 308, and 310):
determine a driving state of the other vehicle based on
i) the sound of the other vehicle (see Schmitt, paragraph 0026, for “tracking the emergency vehicle based on the location of the emergency vehicle”. The word tracking in the art means continuously obtaining that “location” over time. It is in the context of “tracking the emergency vehicle” that Schmitt teaches in paragraph 0029 that the “perception module” and other components of the host vehicle can determine “agent states” including “position, velocity, heading”. This determination applies to “other vehicles,” such as non-emergency vehicles, but the determination is “not limited” to that. This means that it can apply to emergency vehicles. These two paragraphs together strongly indicate that Schmitt determines not just the location but also the trajectory of the emergency vehicle. Determining “velocity” requires more than one position measurement over time, and the “tracking” implies exactly that. “Heading” implies the direction of the position change. Schmitt also teaches, such as in paragraph 0124, that other vehicles nearby will pull over to the side of the road based on detecting the sirens or lights of the emergency vehicle. As also taught in paragraph 0029, a host vehicle can determine “the presence and location of emergency vehicles” and then yield or move over. The host vehicle can also determine the “agent states (e.g. position, velocity, heading)” of agents operating in the environment of the host vehicle and determine if they will slow down or merge away from the emergency vehicle. Paragraph 0004 teaches that “In a typical vehicle operating environment, it is likely that the [host] autonomous vehicle will confront an emergency vehicle,” such an ambulance “behind the [host] vehicle”. Schmitt writes that “If the emergency vehicle is behind the vehicle, the vehicle operated is required to yield to the emergency vehicle.” These paragraphs suggest that the host vehicle in Schmitt not only knows the location of an emergency vehicle but can also recognize when an emergency vehicle is approaching from behind and can then pull over for it. Thus, the host vehicle knows “the moving path” of the emergency vehicle. See paragraph 0049 for determining “the locations of the siren sounds”. See also claim 11 for determining the “presence of the emergency vehicle” and then see claim 13, which depends on claim 11 for “tracking the emergency vehicle based on the presence of the emergency vehicle.” This ) [[,]] and
ii) at least one of
the moving path[[,]] of the host vehicle (see paragraph 0069 for the host vehicle moving “along a trajectory 198…while avoiding…vehicle 193, pedestrians 192,” etc. See paragraph 0098 for the host vehicle using maps and GPS. See paragraph 0096 for a localization module 408. See paragraph 0050 for determining the route or trajectory of the vehicle in relations to the locations of sirens.) or
the expected moving path of the host vehicle (see paragraph 0100 for the “planned trajectory” of the host vehicle being known to itself.),
determine a moving path of the other vehicle based on [[a]] the driving state of the other vehicle (see Schmitt paragraph 0026 for “tracking the emergency vehicle”. See paragraph 0004 for determining that an emergency vehicle is “behind” the host vehicle and then yielding to it. See the same paragraph for detecting an emergency vehicle ahead of the host vehicle and moving over for it. See paragraph 0029 for detecting the emergency vehicle and then causing the host vehicle to “slow down, or merge away” from it.), and
control to avoid the moving path of the other vehicle (see Schmitt, paragraph 0131 for attaching bounding boxes to the vehicle emitting the siren so that the host vehicle can “plan a route or trajectory in the operating environment.” See paragraph 0100 for generating a “planned trajectory” of the host vehicle. See paragraph 0069 for the host vehicle moving “along a trajectory 198…while avoiding…vehicle 193, pedestrians 192,” etc. See also paragraph 0004, 0029, 0050.).
Regarding claim 8, Schmitt teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Schmitt further teaches:
The apparatus of claim [[7]] 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine the driving state of the other vehicle based on
i) at least one of
the expected moving path of the host vehicle,
the moving path of the host vehicle, or
any combination thereof (see paragraph 0096 for the planning module generating the future trajectory of the host vehicle and the localization module determining the current position of the host vehicle. See also paragraph 0098. See Schmitt paragraph 0110 for teaching a system in which the location of an emergency vehicle is determined using microphones “placed at different locations around the [host] vehicle” detect a siren. These sounds are fed into a “sound source localizer 604,” which is then fed into a “fusion module 504,” as shown in Fig. 6. See paragraphs 0111 for determining “a location estimate of the siren sound source” even before inputting that into the fusion module 504. See paragraph 0026 for “tracking the emergency vehicle based on the location of the emergency vehicle”. See paragraph 0029 for determining agent states including position, velocity, and heading.)
and
ii) a moving path of the sound, wherein the moving path of the sound is formed based on the sound (see Schmitt paragraph 0110 for teaching a system in which the location of an emergency vehicle is determined using microphones “placed at different locations around the [host] vehicle” detect a siren. These sounds are fed into a “sound source localizer 604,” which is then fed into a “fusion module 504,” as shown in Fig. 6. See paragraphs 0111 for determining “a location estimate of the siren sound source” even before inputting that into the fusion module 504. See paragraph 0026 for “tracking the emergency vehicle based on the location of the emergency vehicle”. See paragraph 0029 for determining agent states including position, velocity, and heading.),
Regarding claim 15, Schmitt discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
control driving of the host vehicle to form a moving passage for the other vehicle, based on the driving state of the other vehicle, by activating a driving assist function of the host vehicle (see paragraph 0068 for the disclosure of Luo applying to “driver assisted vehicles”. See paragraph 0131 for locating an emergency vehicle and planning a route or trajectory accordingly. See also the end of paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 16, Schmitt discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Schmitt further discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the other vehicle comprises an emergency vehicle (see paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 17, Schmitt discloses:
A method for controlling a host vehicle, the method comprising:
acquiring a sound of another vehicle (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0105 for the audio interface 601 that receives sound. See also paragraph 0102);
acquiring a moving path of the host vehicle and an expected moving path of the host vehicle (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0095 for a perception module 402, planning module 404, and localization module 408. See paragraph 0096 for the planning module generating the future trajectory of the host vehicle and the localization module determining the current position of the host vehicle. See also paragraph 0098.);
determining a driving state of the other vehicle based on
i) the sound of the other vehicle (see Schmitt. Schmitt teaches a system in which the location of an emergency vehicle is determined using microphones “placed at different locations around the [host] vehicle” detect a siren, as taught in paragraph 0110. These sounds are fed into a “sound source localizer 604,” which is then fed into a “fusion module 504,” as shown in Fig. 6. See paragraphs 0111 for determining “a location estimate of the siren sound source” even before inputting that into the fusion module 504. See paragraph 0131 for the teaching that the host vehicle can “plan to maneuver to the side of the road based on the estimated location of the emergency vehicle”. That way the host vehicle “may respond in a predictable manner to the siren sound or flashing lights of the emergency vehicle (e.g., lane change, stop, move off the road) in accordance with state regulations.” The fact that this paragraph teaches “siren sound or flashing lights” is important. It shows, as does paragraph 0111, that the host vehicle in Schmitt does not require the siren sound and the flashing lights of the emergency vehicle, but just the siren sound to perform the disclosed features.) [[,]] and
ii) at least one of
the moving path[[,]] of the host vehicle (see paragraph 0069 for the host vehicle moving “along a trajectory 198…while avoiding…vehicle 193, pedestrians 192,” etc. See paragraph 0098 for the host vehicle using maps and GPS. See paragraph 0096 for a localization module 408. See paragraph 0050 for determining the route or trajectory of the vehicle in relations to the locations of sirens.) or
the expected moving path of the host vehicle (see paragraph 0100 for the “planned trajectory” of the host vehicle being known to itself.),
determining [[the]] a moving path of the other vehicle based on the driving state of the other vehicle (see Schmitt paragraph 0026 for “tracking the emergency vehicle”. See paragraph 0004 for determining that an emergency vehicle is “behind” the host vehicle and then yielding to it. See the same paragraph for detecting an emergency vehicle ahead of the host vehicle and moving over for it. See paragraph 0029 for detecting the emergency vehicle and then causing the host vehicle to “slow down, or merge away” from it.); and
controlling the host vehicle to avoid the moving path of the other vehicle (see Schmitt, paragraph 0131 for attaching bounding boxes to the vehicle emitting the siren so that the host vehicle can “plan a route or trajectory in the operating environment.” See paragraph 0100 for generating a “planned trajectory” of the host vehicle. See paragraph 0069 for the host vehicle moving “along a trajectory 198…while avoiding…vehicle 193, pedestrians 192,” etc. See also paragraph 0004, 0029, 0050.).
Regarding claim 18, Schmitt discloses the method of claim 17.
Schmitt further discloses:
The method of claim 17, further comprising:
controlling driving of the host vehicle to form a moving passage for moving the other vehicle based on [[a]] the driving state of the other vehicle by activating a driving assist function of the host vehicle (see paragraph 0068 for the disclosure of Luo applying to “driver assisted vehicles”. See paragraph 0131 for locating an emergency vehicle and planning a route or trajectory accordingly. See also the end of paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 19, Schmitt discloses the method of claim 17.
Schmitt further discloses:
The method of claim 17, wherein
the other vehicle comprises an emergency vehicle (see paragraph 0004).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Neolix (CN111409644A).
Regarding claim 2, Schmitt discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Yet Schmitt does not further teach:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the plurality of sensor includes:
a first sensor provided on a left side of a front portion of the host vehicle,
a second sensor provided on a right side of the front portion of the host vehicle,
a third sensor provided on a left side of a rear portion of the host vehicle, and
a fourth sensor provided on a right side of the rear portion of the host vehicle.
However, Neolix teaches:
the plurality of sensor includes:
a first sensor provided on a left side of a front portion of the host vehicle,
a second sensor provided on a right side of the front portion of the host vehicle,
a third sensor provided on a left side of a rear portion of the host vehicle, and
a fourth sensor provided on a right side of the rear portion of the host vehicle (see Fig. 3 attached below and page 4 of the attached English translation for a system that uses “sound sensors 3” that are “uniformly distributed around the vehicle body 4”. They can be “on each side of the vehicle body 4 of the autonomous vehicle”. These detect sound from “the outside sound source 5”. Page 5 teaches that the sound sensors 3 can be “at each corner position of the vehicle body 4”. See the top of page 5 for the sound sensors being used to determine “the distance da and the distance d2 in Fig. 2 can be determined according to the specific receiving time of the sound emitted by the external sound source 5 received” by the sound sensors.).
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 the system, as taught by Schmitt, to add the additional features of: the plurality of sensor includes: a first sensor provided on a left side of a front portion of the host vehicle, a second sensor provided on a right side of the front portion of the host vehicle, a third sensor provided on a left side of a rear portion of the host vehicle, and a fourth sensor provided on a right side of the rear portion of the host vehicle, as taught by Neolix. The motivation for doing so would be for “adjusting the traveling parameters of the autonomous vehicle to make corresponding avoidance” when a sound-making obstacle such as “another vehicle” is located, as recognized by Neolix (see the middle of page 5).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Schmitt and Neolix teach the apparatus of claim 2.
Schmitt further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine that the other vehicle is driving in back of the host vehicle,based on determining that a time for the sound to reach at least one of the first sensor, the second sensor, or any combination thereof exceeds a time for the sound to reach at least one of the third sensor, the fourth sensor, or any combination thereof (see Schmitt paragraph 0110 for “time-of-arrival (TOA) measurements” using a “microphone array” in which the microphones are “placed at different locations around the vehicle”. The paragraph also teaches determining “TDOA [time-difference-of-arrival, see paragraph 0105] measurements or direction-of-arrival (DOA) estimates”. The system also uses “three-dimensional (3D) sound source localization” using “microphone arrays”. The TOA and TDOA using an array of microphones meets this limitation. See also paragraph 0004 for a host vehicle detecting when an emergency vehicle is “behind the [host] vehicle.”).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Neolix (CN111409644A) in further view of Ferguson et al. (U.S. 8,676,427).
Regarding claim 4, Schmitt and Neolix teach the apparatus of claim 2.
Yet Schmitt and Neolix do not further teach:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine that the other vehicle is driving on a lane the same as a lane on which the host vehicle is driving, based on determining that
i) a difference between a time for the sound to reach the first sensor and a time for the sound to reach the second sensor is less than or equal to athreshold value and
ii) a difference between a time for the sound to reach the third sensor and a time for the sound to reach the fourth sensor is less than or equal to the threshold value.
However, Ferguson teaches:
determine that the other vehicle is driving on a lane the same as a lane on which the host vehicle is driving, based on determining that
i) a difference between a time for the sound to reach the first sensor and a time for the sound to reach the second sensor is less than or equal to athreshold value (see Ferguson col. 9, lines 4-5 for “multiple front and/or rear microphones, as well as, microphones disposed along sides of the vehicle.” See col. 9, lines 15-26 for microphones disposed “around the vehicle”. Ferguson teaches “Illustratively, if a microphone at a back of the vehicle detects the audio data with a higher amplitude than a microphone at a front of the vehicle, then the sensor fusion algorithm 138 may determine that the audio data originates from a source behind the vehicle.” See col. 9, lines 27-34 for analyzing sound at “different times” to determine what direction the audio source is traveling with respect to the host vehicle. A microphone may detecting audio data at “a first time with a first amplitude” and then at “a second later time at a second greater amplitude” and determine that the “audio data source is approaching the vehicle from behind.” See col. 5, lines 47-67 for the system determining the “directional data relating to a direction and/ or distance of the source of the audio data relative to the vehicle” including by using the “Doppler Effect,” audio triangulation, audio amplitude analysis, and determining that a back microphone detects, for example, “a higher amplitude” than a front microphone. See col. 6, lines 1-7 for the “sound recognition algorithm” comparing “frequency, spectrum, amplitude, etc.” These sections meet the present clause.
The result of the audio analysis can be, according to Fig. 3 and col. 10, lines 33-67, determining that an emergency vehicle is approaching “from behind in the left lane 302,” or simply “approaching in the left lane” which is the same lane as the host vehicle. In other cases, the system can detect that “an emergency vehicle…is approaching the [host] vehicle 100 from ahead,” according to col. 8, lines 11-12. In response to the various detections, the host vehicle can, according to col. 11, lines 1-4, “slow down and pull over”. The system will “update the driving path dynamically while the vehicle 100 is in operation,” according to col. 6, lines 19-27.) and
ii) a difference between a time for the sound to reach the third sensor and a time for the sound to reach the fourth sensor is less than or equal to the threshold value (see the bullet directly above.).
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 the system, as taught by Schmitt and Neolix, to add the additional features of: determine that the other vehicle is driving on a lane the same as a lane on which the host vehicle is driving, based on determining that i) a difference between a time for the sound to reach the first sensor and a time for the sound to reach the second sensor is less than or equal to athreshold value and ii) a difference between a time for the sound to reach the third sensor and a time for the sound to reach the fourth sensor is less than or equal to the threshold value, as taught by Ferguson. The motivation for doing so would be to update the driving path of the host vehicle to yield to the emergency vehicle, as recognized by Ferguson (see col. 6, lines 19-27 and col. 11, lines 1-4).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 5, Schmitt, Neolix, and Ferguson teach the apparatus of claim 4.
Yet Schmitt and Neolix further teach:
The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine that the other vehicle is driving on a second lane different from a first lane on which the host vehicle is driving,based on determining that
i) the difference between the time for the sound to reach the first sensor[[,]] and the time for the sound to reach the second sensor exceeds the threshold value and
ii) the difference between the time for the sound to reach the third sensor and the time for the sound to reach the fourth sensor exceeds thethreshold value.
However, Ferguson teaches:
The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine that the other vehicle is driving on a second lane different from a first lane on which the host vehicle is driving,based on determining that
i) the difference between the time for the sound to reach the first sensor[[,]] and the time for the sound to reach the second sensor exceeds the threshold value (see Ferguson col. 9, lines 4-5 for “multiple front and/or rear microphones, as well as, microphones disposed along sides of the vehicle.” See col. 9, lines 15-26 for microphones disposed “around the vehicle”. Ferguson teaches “Illustratively, if a microphone at a back of the vehicle detects the audio data with a higher amplitude than a microphone at a front of the vehicle, then the sensor fusion algorithm 138 may determine that the audio data originates from a source behind the vehicle.” See col. 9, lines 27-34 for analyzing sound at “different times” to determine what direction the audio source is traveling with respect to the host vehicle. A microphone may detecting audio data at “a first time with a first amplitude” and then at “a second later time at a second greater amplitude” and determine that the “audio data source is approaching the vehicle from behind.” See col. 5, lines 47-67 for the system determining the “directional data relating to a direction and/ or distance of the source of the audio data relative to the vehicle” including by using the “Doppler Effect,” audio triangulation, audio amplitude analysis, and determining that a back microphone detects, for example, “a higher amplitude” than a front microphone. See col. 6, lines 1-7 for the “sound recognition algorithm” comparing “frequency, spectrum, amplitude, etc.” These sections meet the present clause.
The result of the audio analysis can be, according to Fig. 3 and col. 10, lines 33-67, determining that an emergency vehicle is approaching “from behind in the left lane 302,” or simply “approaching in the left lane” which is the same lane as the host vehicle. In other cases, the system can detect that “an emergency vehicle…is approaching the [host] vehicle 100 from ahead,” according to col. 8, lines 11-12. In response to the various detections, the host vehicle can, according to col. 11, lines 1-4, “slow down and pull over”. The system will “update the driving path dynamically while the vehicle 100 is in operation,” according to col. 6, lines 19-27.) and
ii) the difference between the time for the sound to reach the third sensor and the time for the sound to reach the fourth sensor exceeds thethreshold value (see the bullet directly above.).
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 the system, as taught by Schmitt, Neolix, and Ferguson to add the additional features of: determine that the other vehicle is driving on a second lane different from a first lane on which the host vehicle is driving,based on determining that i) the difference between the time for the sound to reach the first sensor[[,]] and the time for the sound to reach the second sensor exceeds the threshold value and ii) the difference between the time for the sound to reach the third sensor and the time for the sound to reach the fourth sensor exceeds thethreshold value, as taught by Ferguson. The motivation for doing so would be to update the driving path of the host vehicle to yield to the emergency vehicle, as recognized by Ferguson (see col. 6, lines 19-27 and col. 11, lines 1-4).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Neolix in further view of Pinl (DE102018121312A1).
Regarding claim 6, Schmitt and Neolix teach the apparatus of claim 2.
Yet Schmitt and Neolix do not further teach:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine that the other vehicle is driving while approaching the host vehicle based on determining that
i) a frequency of a sound acquired by at least one of the first sensor, the second sensor, the third sensor, or the fourth sensor, or any combination thereof, is increased in strength and
ii) a wavelength of the sound is decreased.
However, Pinl teaches:
determine that the other vehicle is driving while approaching the host vehicle based on determining that
i) a frequency of a sound acquired by at least one of the first sensor, the second sensor, the third sensor, or the fourth sensor, or any combination thereof, is increased in strength and
ii) a wavelength of the sound is decreased (in a broad reasonable interpretation, what the claim is talking about is the Doppler effect, which is the change in wave frequency when a wave source and an observer are moving relative to each other. Since frequency is the number of waves per second (Hz), wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency, as this claim makes clear. When a vehicle with a siren is approach an observer, the frequency increases, causing a higher pitch. The frequency increases because the wavelength decreases as the siren-emitting vehicle moves closer to the observer. With that in mind see Pinl, page 3 of the attached English translation, for an autonomous vehicle that can detect “doppler shifted siren sounds.” See page 4 for “a doppler shift” indicating “an approaching emergency vehicle”. See page 5 for the host vehicle pulling “to the right” if an emergency vehicle is approaching.).
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 the system, as taught by Schmitt and Neolix, to add the additional features of: determine that the other vehicle is driving while approaching the host vehicle based on determining that i) a frequency of a sound acquired by at least one of the first sensor, the second sensor, the third sensor, or the fourth sensor, or any combination thereof, is increased in strength and ii) a wavelength of the sound is decreased, as taught by Pinl. The motivation for doing so would be to have “accident-free” driving when an emergency vehicle is approaching, as recognized by Pinl (see the top of page 3).
This combination is especially obvious since Schmitt at least strongly teaches towards it with the teaching of TDOA.
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 7, Schmitt and Neolix teach the apparatus of claim 2.
Yet Schmitt and Neolix do not further teach:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
the one or more processors are configured to: determine that determination of [[a]] the driving state of the other vehicle has failed based on a failure
a time for the sound to reach at least one of the first sensor, the second sensor, the third sensor, or the fourth sensor, or any combination thereof,
a variation of a frequency of the sound, a variation of a wavelength of the sound, or any combination thereof.
However, Pinl teaches:
the one or more processors are configured to: determine that determination of [[a]] the driving state of the other vehicle has failed based on a failure
a time for the sound to reach at least one of the first sensor, the second sensor, the third sensor, or the fourth sensor, or any combination thereof,
a variation of a frequency of the sound, a variation of a wavelength of the sound, or any combination thereof (see Pinl page 3 for a system in which, because the cycle time is “less than 50 milliseconds” the system has not obtained enough data to determine the driving state of the other 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 the system, as taught by Schmitt and Neolix, to add the additional features of: the one or more processors are configured to: determine that determination of [[a]] the driving state of the other vehicle has failed based on a failure see the top of page 3).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Luo et al. (US2021/0173408).
Regarding claim 9, Schmitt teaches the apparatus of claim 8.
Yet Schmitt does not further teach:
The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine whether the moving path of the host vehicle is the same as the moving path of the soundzbased on determining that the other vehicle is driving in back of the host vehicle.
However, Luo teaches:
determine whether the moving path of the host vehicle is the same as the moving path of the soundzbased on determining that the other vehicle is driving in back of the host vehicle (in the present disclosure, claims 9, 11, and 12 uses a “determine whether” formulation while claims 10, 13, and 14 use a “determine that” formulation. At these originally.
Claim 9 broadly and reasonably means: Go to Fig. 12, S260, contingent on a YES out of S250. Thus, the determining of the whether or not, yes or no in S260, is triggered by “when it is determined that” the emergency vehicle is in back of the host vehicle, i.e., a YES out of S250.
With all that in mind, see Luo paragraph 062 for determine “if an audio signature of an emergency siren is present.” This reasonably includes locating the emergency vehicle. Then see paragraph 0063 for “If so, then the doppler phrase shift” can determine “If the emergency vehicle siren…is moving towards the ADV” or away from it. “In such a case” as the emergency vehicle moving towards the ADV “the ADV should stop or pullover.” See paragraph 0064 for determining that a siren position may “remain the same over time” indicating that the emergency vehicle is stationary or that both vehicles are moving at the same speed. Paragraph 0066 and Figs. 7 and 8 state that the emergency vehicle “is approaching the ADV (e.g., from behind, as shown)”. But according to paragraph 0069 these are “illustrative rather than limiting.” Other scenarios exist. Clearly, in Fig. 7 the host vehicle can tell that the emergency vehicle is behind. But in Fig. 8 the host vehicle can tell that the emergency vehicle is in front. In Figs. 9 and 10, the emergency vehicle is in front but either approaching or not.
Together these references meet the limitations of claim 9. In Luo, Fig. 4, block 408, the system can determine whether or not there is an emergency vehicle, and locate it, such as either front or back of the host vehicle. This maps to S250 of Fig. 12 of the present disclosure. Then in Luo Fig. 4, block 410, once the locating is performed, the system will “make a determination as to whether the emergency vehicle siren is 1) moving toward the ADV [autonomous vehicle], or B) not moving towards the ADV”. The system of Luo cannot generate a trajectory of the emergency vehicle before determining a first location. Then in step 412, the ADV will be controlled accordingly.).
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 the system, as taught by Schmitt to add the additional features of: determine whether the moving path of the host vehicle is the same as the moving path of the sound based on determining that the other vehicle is driving in back of the host vehicle, as taught by Luo. The motivation for doing so would be for the host vehicle to be able to “ignore sirens that are not approaching and prevent unnecessary disturbances to the drive,” as recognized by Luo (see paragraph 0065).
This combination is especially obvious because Schmitt and Pinl at least strongly teaches toward it. As previously cited, Schmitt teaches determining that an emergency vehicle is behind the host vehicle and that the host vehicle needs to pull over. Schmitt teaches tracking the emergency vehicle. Schmitt teaches TDOA, etc. Schmitt teaches determining if the emergency vehicle is within a minimum distance and then requiring the host vehicle to pull over. Schmitt teaches in paragraph 0131 in particular, determining the location of the emergency vehicle and planning a route for the host vehicle accordingly, including pulling over. All this, probably above a preponderance of the evidence, meets the limitations of this claim. Pinl teaches doing the same. In Pinl, Fig. 2 the system first performs step 90 which is generating environmental data, including determining if there is an emergency vehicle around. Then in step 150, when determining that the vehicle is approaching from behind, will cause the host vehicle to pull over. Luo is used here because Luo is the most explicit.
Regarding claim 10, Schmitt and Luo teach the apparatus of claim 9.
Yet Schmitt does not further explicitly teach:
The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine that the other vehicle is driving while approaching the host vehicle based on determining that the moving path of the host vehicle is the same as the moving path of the sound.
However, Luo teaches:
determine that the other vehicle is driving while approaching the host vehicle based on determining that the moving path of the host vehicle is the same as the moving path of the sound (this claim relates to determining in the present disclosure, a YES out of S260. With that in mind, see Luo paragraph 0063 for “If so, then the doppler phrase shift” can determine “If the emergency vehicle siren…is moving towards the ADV” or away from it. “In such a case” as the emergency vehicle moving towards the ADV “the ADV should stop or pullover.” See paragraph 0064 for determining that a siren position may “remain the same over time” indicating that the emergency vehicle is stationary or that both vehicles are moving at the same speed. Paragraph 0066 and Figs. 7 and 8 state that the emergency vehicle “is approaching the ADV (e.g., from behind, as shown)”. But according to paragraph 0069 these are “illustrative rather than limiting.” See also Luo, Fig. 4, block 408, the system can determine whether or not there is an emergency vehicle, and locate it, such as either front or back of the host vehicle. This maps to S250 of Fig. 12 of the present disclosure. Then in Luo Fig. 4, block 410, once the locating is performed, the system will “make a determination as to whether the emergency vehicle siren is 1) moving toward the ADV [autonomous vehicle], or B) not moving towards the ADV”.).
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 the system, as taught by Schmitt and Luo to add the additional features of: determine that the other vehicle is driving while approaching the host vehicle based on determining that the moving path of the host vehicle is the same as the moving path of the sound, as taught by Luo. The motivation for doing so would be for the host vehicle to be able to “ignore sirens that are not approaching and prevent unnecessary disturbances to the drive,” as recognized by Luo (see paragraph 0065).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 11, Schmitt and Luo teach the apparatus of claim 9.
Yet Schmitt does not further teach:
The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine whether the moving path of the host vehicle is opposite to the moving path of the sound based on determining that the other vehicle is not driving in back of the host vehicle.
However, Luo teaches:
determine whether the moving path of the host vehicle is opposite to the moving path of the sound based on determining that the other vehicle is not driving in back of the host vehicle (in a broad reasonable interpretation, this claim relates to the present disclosures, Fig. 12. Basically the present claim means: determine the answer to S290 when there is a NO out of S250. With that in mind, see Luo. Luo teaches first locating an emergency vehicle, then determining how to react to it. See in particular, Luo Fig. 8 for an emergency vehicle in front of the host vehicle. After locating a siren, Luo teaches determining if it is moving closer to, further from, or neither, in relation to the host vehicle. Paragraph 0032 also teaches localizing the emergency vehicle, including in a “two-way lane”.).
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 the system, as taught by Schmitt and Luo to add the additional features of: determine whether the moving path of the host vehicle is opposite to the moving path of the sound based on determining that the other vehicle is not driving in back of the host vehicle, as taught by Luo. The motivation for doing so would be for the host vehicle to be able to “ignore sirens that are not approaching and prevent unnecessary disturbances to the drive,” as recognized by Luo (see paragraph 0065).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Kim et al. (US2021/0107477) teaches detecting a risk of collision with an emergency vehicle using sound detecting and then avoiding the emergency vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665