DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because while the claim states “computer readable storage medium having program instructions,” the word non-transitory does not modify the storage medium. Therefore, the BRI of the storage medium includes signals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt et al. (US 20230347815 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Schmitt, in view of Sweeney et al. (US 20170240098 A1), herein after will be referred to as Sweeney.
Regarding Claim 1, Schmitt teaches a system on board a vehicle, the system comprising (see at least Schmitt, Para [0051]: “FIG. 1 shows an example of an autonomous vehicle 100 having autonomous capability.”; A system operating on board an autonomous vehicle):
a memory that stores computer executable components (see at least Schmitt, Para [0154]: “Vehicle 1204 also includes computer-readable media 1404 (e.g., memory or hard drives onboard or remote) storing computer-executable instructions.”; Memory (computer-readable media) that stores the necessary computer-executable instructions for the system);
a processor that executes computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise (see at least Schmitt, Para [0154]: “Vehicle 1204 includes at least one processor 1402 (e.g., on-board, or remote) communicatively coupled to the at least sensor 1210 and configured to execute the computer executable instructions.”; A processor configured to execute the stored computer-executable instructions to operate the system):
a stop distance determination component that determines a position where the vehicle will stop based on current speed of the vehicle and rate of deceleration (see at least Schmitt, Para [0137]: “…the expressive vehicle system 1200 determines the deceleration profile 1302 based on the initial velocity VO of the vehicle 1204… the starting point can be further away from the pedestrian 1206A if the vehicle 1204 is travelling at a faster velocity so there is sufficient space to come to a complete stop”; The system determines a specific deceleration profile and stopping point based on the vehicle’s initial speed).
Schmitt does not explicitly teach a stop notification component that projects a visual indicator of the position onto a surface ahead of the vehicle.
However, Sweeney, in the same field of endeavor teaches a stop notification component that projects a visual indicator of the position onto a surface ahead of the vehicle (see at least Sweeney, Para [0054]: “the intention signaling system 235 can signal intention for the AV 200 by generating an intention output 237 utilizing a combination of the output types, such as a displayed output in combination with an audio output… the intention signaling system 235 can project images onto the roadway…forward directional arrows indicating the path that the AV 200 will travel through an intersection.”; see at least Sweeney, Para [0084]: “the intention signaling system 235 can utilize the projector 412 to provide a projected output 416 (e.g., a projected crosswalk) further indicating that the AV 400 is permitting the pedestrians 418 to cross.”; A stop notification component (projector) that projects a visual indicator onto the road surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle’s control system of Schmitt to incorporate the teachings of Sweeney to project a stop notification onto a surface ahead of the vehicle to inform pedestrians the intentions of the vehicle. This provides the benefit of communicating with pedestrians that the autonomous vehicle senses their presence and intends to stop.
Regarding Claim 2, Schmitt and Sweeney remain as applied above in claim 1.
Schmitt does not explicitly teach the stop notification component projects the visual indicator continuously until the vehicle comes to a complete stop.
However, Sweeney, in the same field of endeavor teaches the stop notification component projects the visual indicator continuously until the vehicle comes to a complete stop (see at least Sweeney, Para [0081]: “The intention signaling system 235 can display the intention output until the AV 400 has passed the pedestrians 418 and then terminate the intention output thereafter.”; see at least Sweeney, Para [0097]: “Once the external entities have complied with the permissive or intention output, the intention signaling system 235 can terminate the output (580).”).
Sweeney teaches displaying an intention output for the duration of an event and terminate the intention output. Sweeney further teaches that the signal terminates only after the event is resolved and the external entities have complied, which implies continuous operation during the event. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to continuously project the permissive output to inform the pedestrians of the vehicle intentions until the vehicle comes to a safe stop.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller of Schmitt to incorporate the teachings of Sweeney to project the stop notification continuously until the vehicle comes to a stop. This provides the benefit of communicating to the pedestrian until the vehicle has safely come to a stop.
Regarding Claim 3, Schmitt and Sweeney remain as applied above in claim 1.
Schmitt does not explicitly teach the visual indicator comprises a stripe orientated horizontally to an orientation of the vehicle.
However, Sweeney, in the same field of endeavor teaches the visual indicator comprises a stripe orientated horizontally to an orientation of the vehicle (see at least Sweeney, Para [0084]: “…the intention signaling system 235 can utilize the projector 412 to provide a projected output 416 (e.g., a projected crosswalk) further indicating that the AV 400 is permitting the pedestrians 418 to cross.”; see at least Sweeney, FIG. 4A; Projection a crosswalk onto the road, a crosswalk fundamentally composes of one or more horizontal stripes).
Sweeney teaches that the projector can output a visual crosswalk from the intention signaling system to guide pedestrians safely across the road. It is well-understood that a crosswalk is composed of one or more horizontal stripes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to project a stripe visual that is horizontal in orientation of the vehicle to permit the pedestrians to cross.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Schmitt to incorporate the teachings of Sweeney to make the projected visual indicator a horizontal stripe. This provides the benefit of ensuring the safety of pedestrians by guiding them with a projected crosswalk in front of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 4, Schmitt and Sweeney remain as applied above in claim 1. Schmitt further teaches a crosswalk identification component that identifies a crosswalk on the surface ahead of the vehicle (see at least Schmitt, Para [0125]: “…data representing the pedestrian 1206A of obtained using the at least one sensor 1210 and data representing a location of a crosswalk 1212 is obtained from a database… the expressive vehicle system 1200 also determines a distance between the pedestrian 1206A and the crosswalk 1212 (e.g., one or more boundaries of crosswalk 1212).”; The system identifies and determines the distance from the vehicle to the sidewalk and pedestrian); wherein the stop notification component determines the position based on the determination that the vehicle does not have the right of way (see at least Schmitt, Para [0128]: “…if the pedestrian 1206A is within 2 meters of a side of the crosswalk 1212, the expressive vehicle system 1200 determines that the pedestrian 1206A
intends to cross the road via the crosswalk 1212 and therefore the vehicle 1204 performs an expressive maneuver.”; see at least Schmitt, Para [0125]: “the expressive vehicle system 1200 also determines a distance between the pedestrian 1206A and the crosswalk 1212 (e.g., one or more boundaries of crosswalk 1212).”; The expressive system determines the vehicle does not have the right of way from the intentions of the pedestrian and performs an expressive maneuver to determine a stop position). Schmitt does not explicitly teach a right of way determination component that scans the crosswalk and a surrounding area to determine if the vehicle has a right of way to pass over the crosswalk
However, Sweeney, in the same field of endeavor teaches a right of way determination component that scans the crosswalk and a surrounding area to determine if the vehicle has a right of way to pass over the crosswalk (see at least Sweeney, Para [0066]: “The right-of-way engine 350 can further analyze the sensor data 307 for external entities, such as other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and the like…For example, when identifying a pedestrian attempting to cross the road with or without a crosswalk, a default rule for the right-of-way engine 350 can be to generate a decision 352 indicating that the pedestrian has right-of-way. However, if the right-of-way engine 350 identifies a right-of-way indicator (e.g., a traffic signal), then the right-of-way engine 350 can generate the decision 352 based on the right-of-way indicator (e.g., green traffic light=AV's right-of-way).”; The right-of-way engine analyzes the environment through sensor data identifying crosswalks and if the vehicle has a right-of-way based on the traffic signals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the expressive vehicle system as taught by Schmitt to incorporate Sweeney’s right-of-way engine to determine if the vehicle has the right of way to pass over the crosswalk. A person of ordinary skill in the art of autonomous vehicles would understand that processing traffic signs to determine if the vehicle has a right of way is a critical safety feature to obey the traffic laws. This provides the benefit of ensuring the vehicle follows the rules and regulations of traffic signs and enhances the safety for the surrounding vehicles and pedestrians.
Regarding Claim 5, Schmitt and Sweeney remain as applied above in claim 4. Schmitt further teaches a vehicle operations component that automatically disables acceleration of the vehicle based on the determination that the vehicle does not have the right of way (see at least Schmitt, Para [0120]: “The controller 1002 has a speed profiler 1102 which affects the operation of a throttle/brake controller 1104. For example, the speed profiler 1102 instructs the throttle/brake controller 1104 to engage acceleration or engage deceleration using the throttle/brake 1106 depending on, e.g., feedback received by the controller 1002 and processed by the speed profiler 1102.”; see at least Schmitt, Para [0127]: “If all the entry conditions are satisfied, the vehicle 1204 performs an expressive maneuver to convey the vehicle's 1204 intent to the pedestrian 1206A.”; see at least Schmitt, Para [0129]: “the expressive vehicle system 1200 can determine the expressive maneuver to include a deceleration of the vehicle 1204 such that the vehicle 1204 stops a predetermined distance B away from the pedestrian 1206A.”; The system autonomously executes an expressive maneuver through the speed profiler after determining that all entry conditions (right of way) are satisfied. Disabling acceleration is an inherent step of decelerating the vehicle).
Regarding Claim 6, Schmitt and Sweeney remain as applied above in claim 3. Schmitt does not explicitly teach the visual indicator comprises flashing of the stripe.
However, Sweeney, in the same field of endeavor teaches the visual indicator comprises flashing of the stripe (see at least Sweeney, Para [0070]: “…the intention signaling system 300 can increase a visual urgency in the intention output, such as changing the colors of the arrows, flashing the arrows at an increased frequency, or providing audio to the proximate entities... the intention signaling system 300 can flash colored lights…”; The intention signaling system can flash color changing arrows and at an increased frequency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle control system as taught by Schmitt to incorporate the teachings of Sweeney’s intention signaling system of flashing the visual indicators. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the flashings visual signals to the project stripe. This would provide the benefit of visually alerting the pedestrians that it is safe to use the crosswalk.
Regarding Claim 7, Schmitt and Sweeney remain as applied above in claim 4. Schmitt further teaches the stop notification component further determines if the position is located before the crosswalk (see at least Schmitt, Para [0129]: “the expressive vehicle system 1200 can determine the expressive maneuver to include a deceleration of the vehicle 1204 such that the vehicle 1204 stops a predetermined distance B away from the pedestrian 1206A.”; see at least Schmitt, Para [0133]: “For example, when the vehicle 1204 comes to a complete stop at least 5 meters away from the pedestrian 1206A, the pedestrian 1206A is more confident that the vehicle 1204 is stopping to allow the pedestrian 1206A to cross the road via the crosswalk 1212”; see at least Schmitt, FIG. 3; The system determines a specific stopping point before the crosswalk).
Schmitt does not explicitly teach the visual indicator comprises a first pattern if the position is located before the crosswalk and the visual indicator comprises a second pattern if the position is not located before the crosswalk.
However, Sweeney, in the same field of endeavor teaches the visual indicator comprises a first pattern if the position is located before the crosswalk (see at least Sweeney, Para [0014]: “…the intention signaling system can utilize right-of-way information (e.g., a traffic signal or crosswalk indicator) to determine whether the AV or the proximate humans have right-of-way. If the proximate humans have right-of-way, the intention signaling system can generate a permissive output (e.g., display green arrows and/or project an image such as a crosswalk onto the pavement) that enables the humans to readily determine the AV's acquiescence.”; The Examiner Interprets, under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, the vehicle determines that the pedestrian has the right-of-way for the position to be located before the crosswalk and perform a stopping maneuver. The permissive output (first pattern) is displayed when yielding that corresponds to stopping before the crosswalk) and the visual indicator comprises a second pattern if the position is not located before the crosswalk (see at least Sweeney, Para [0014]: “…the intention signaling system can utilize right-of-way information (e.g., a traffic signal or crosswalk indicator) to determine whether the AV or the proximate humans have right-of-way…If the AV has right-of-way, the intention signaling system can generate an intention output indicating that the AV will proceed before the humans. This permissive output can also include visual and/or audible feedback (e.g., flashing red lights or a pedestrian halt symbol on a display).”; The Examiner Interprets, under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, the system determines that the vehicle has the right-of-way and is not required to locate the stop position before the crosswalk or the vehicle has determined that it cannot stop before the crosswalk. The permissive output (second pattern) is displayed to alert pedestrians for their safety that the vehicle will continue driving or cannot stop before the crosswalk).
Sweeney’s teaching of a “permissive output” is activated when a pedestrian has the right-of-way that corresponds to the vehicle indicating that it will stop before the crosswalk and projects a crosswalk onto the pavement (a first pattern). Furthermore, Sweeney teaches an “intention output” that is used when the vehicle intends to proceed and displays flashing red lights or a halt symbol to inform the pedestrian not to cross (a second pattern) when the determined position is not located before the crosswalk.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the expressive vehicle system of Schmitt to incorporate the teachings of Sweeney to use different visual patterns based upon determining the right-of-way. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to visually display the intent of the autonomous vehicle’s action. This provides the benefit of a communication system that conveys the vehicles intent and improves the safety awareness to the pedestrian.
Regarding Claim 8. Schmitt teaches determining, by a device comprising a processor located on a vehicle, a position where the vehicle will stop based on current speed of the vehicle and rate of deceleration (see at least Schmitt, Para [0127]: “the expressive vehicle system 1200 can determine the expressive maneuver to include a deceleration of the vehicle 1204 such that the vehicle 1204 stops a predetermined distance B away from the pedestrian 1206A.”; see at least Schmitt, Para [0137]: “…the expressive vehicle system 1200 determines the deceleration profile 1302 based on the initial velocity VO of the vehicle 1204… the starting point can be further away from the pedestrian 1206A if the vehicle 1204 is travelling at a faster velocity so there is sufficient space to come to a complete stop”; The system determines a specific stopping point by calculating a deceleration based on the initial velocity (current speed) of the vehicle).
Schmitt does not explicitly teach projecting, by the device, a visual indicator of the position onto a surface ahead of the vehicle.
However, Sweeney, in the same field of endeavor teaches projecting, by the device, a visual indicator of the position onto a surface ahead of the vehicle (see at least Sweeney, Para [0054]: “the intention signaling system 235 can signal intention for the AV 200 by generating an intention output 237 utilizing a combination of the output types, such as a displayed output in combination with an audio output… the intention signaling system 235 can project images onto the roadway…forward directional arrows indicating the path that the AV 200 will travel through an intersection.”; see at least Sweeney, Para [0084]: “the intention signaling system 235 can utilize the projector 412 to provide a projected output 416 (e.g., a projected crosswalk) further indicating that the AV 400 is permitting the pedestrians 418 to cross.”; A stop notification component (projector) that projects a visual indicator onto the road surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle’s control logic of Schmitt to incorporate the teachings of Sweeney to use the projector to provide a visual indicator onto the surface ahead of the vehicle to inform pedestrians the intentions of the vehicle. This provides the benefit of conveying the actions of the autonomous vehicle and communicating with pedestrians that the vehicle senses their presence.
Regarding Claim 9, Schmitt and Sweeney remain as applied above in claim 8.
Schmitt does not explicitly teach the visual indicator is projected continuously until the vehicle comes to a complete stop.
However, Sweeney, in the same field of endeavor teaches the visual indicator is projected continuously until the vehicle comes to a complete stop (see at least Sweeney, Para [0081]: “The intention signaling system 235 can display the intention output until the AV 400 has passed the pedestrians 418 and then terminate the intention output thereafter.”; see at least Sweeney, Para [0097]: “Once the external entities have complied with the permissive or intention output, the intention signaling system 235 can terminate the output (580).”; see at least Sweeney, Para [0014]: “…a permissive output indicating that the AV is giving the humans right-of-way to cross the AV's path… If the proximate humans have right-of-way, the intention signaling system can generate a permissive output (e.g., display green arrows and/or project an image such as a crosswalk onto the pavement) that enables the humans to readily determine the AV's acquiescence.”).
Sweeney teaches that a visual signal can be maintained throughout the duration of a traffic interaction to ensure clear communication with external entities such as pedestrians. Specifically, Sweeney discloses that the that the “intention signaling system can display the intention output until the AV 400 has passed the pedestrians 418 and then terminate the intention output thereafter” (Para [0081]), which implies a continuous display during the vehicle’s maneuver. Furthermore, Sweeney explains that the system will terminate the output “Once the external entities have complied with the permissive or intention output” (Para [0097]). In the context of a permissive output where the vehicle is stopping to yield a pedestrian (Para [0014]), the pedestrian has not complied until the vehicle has come to a full stop. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the visual indicator must remain active until the vehicle completes its stop, as early termination would undermine the effectiveness of the communication to the pedestrian.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the method of Schmitt to incorporate the teachings of Sweeney’s visual signals being projected until the vehicle’s maneuver is complete. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to project the images communicating the vehicle’s intention of stopping until the autonomous vehicle has come to a full complete stop. This provides the benefit of a clear and persistent visual that enhances pedestrian safety by communicating the vehicle’s intent to stop through the duration of the maneuver.
Regarding Claim 10, Schmitt and Sweeney remain as applied above in claim 8.
Schmitt does not explicitly teach the visual indicator comprises a stripe orientated horizontally to an orientation of the vehicle.
However, Sweeney, in the same field of endeavor teaches the visual indicator comprises a stripe orientated horizontally to an orientation of the vehicle (see at least Sweeney, Para [0084]: “…the intention signaling system 235 can utilize the projector 412 to provide a projected output 416 (e.g., a projected crosswalk) further indicating that the AV 400 is permitting the pedestrians 418 to cross.”; see at least Sweeney, FIG. 4A; Projection a crosswalk onto the road, a crosswalk fundamentally composes of one or more horizontal stripes).
Sweeney discloses the intention signaling system can project a crosswalk to permit the pedestrians to cross. It is well-understood that a crosswalk is composed of one or more horizontal stripes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to project a stripe visual that is horizontal in orientation of the vehicle to permit the pedestrians to cross.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Schmitt to incorporate the teachings of Sweeney to make the projected visual indicator a horizontal stripe to show where the vehicle has intentions to stop or provide a crosswalk image to guide pedestrians. This provides the benefit of ensuring the safety of pedestrians by communicating the position where the vehicle will stop or guide them with a projected crosswalk in front of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 11, Schmitt and Sweeney remain as applied above in claim 8. Schmitt further teaches identifying, by the device, a crosswalk on the surface ahead of the vehicle (see at least Schmitt, Para [0125]: “…data representing the pedestrian 1206A of obtained using the at least one sensor 1210 and data representing a location of a crosswalk 1212 is obtained from a database… the expressive vehicle system 1200 also determines a distance between the pedestrian 1206A and the crosswalk 1212 (e.g., one or more boundaries of crosswalk 1212).”; The method involves obtaining data that identifies the location of a crosswalk ahead of the vehicle); and
scanning, by the device, the crosswalk and a surrounding area for pedestrians (see at least Schmitt, Para [0124]: “Vehicle 1204 includes at least one sensor 1210…configured to detect the objects…in the environment 1202 external to the vehicle 1204.”; see at least Schmitt, Para [0125]: “…data representing the pedestrian 1206A of obtained using the at least one sensor 1210 and data representing a location of a crosswalk 1212 is obtained from a database.”; The method uses sensors to scan the environment to obtain data representing pedestrians and the crosswalk);
the determination where the vehicle will stop is actuated based on the determination that the vehicle does not have the right of way (see at least Schmitt, Para [0128]: “…if the pedestrian 1206A is within 2 meters of a side of the crosswalk 1212, the expressive vehicle system 1200 determines that the pedestrian 1206A intends to cross the road via the crosswalk 1212 and therefore the vehicle 1204 performs an expressive maneuver.”; see at least Schmitt, Para [0125]: “the expressive vehicle system 1200 also determines a distance between the pedestrian 1206A and the crosswalk 1212 (e.g., one or more boundaries of crosswalk 1212).”; The expressive system determines the vehicle does not have the right of way from the intentions of the pedestrian and performs an expressive maneuver to determine a stop position).
Schmitt does not explicitly teach determining, by the device, if the vehicle has a right of way to pass over the crosswalk,
However, Sweeney, in the same field of endeavor teaches determining, by the device, if the vehicle has a right of way to pass over the crosswalk (see at least Sweeney, Para [0066]: “The right-of-way engine 350 can further analyze the sensor data 307 for external entities, such as other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and the like…For example, when identifying a pedestrian attempting to cross the road with or without a crosswalk, a default rule for the right-of-way engine 350 can be to generate a decision 352 indicating that the pedestrian has right-of-way. However, if the right-of-way engine 350 identifies a right-of-way indicator (e.g., a traffic signal), then the right-of-way engine 350 can generate the decision 352 based on the right-of-way indicator (e.g., green traffic light=AV's right-of-way).”; The right-of-way engine determines if the vehicle has the right of way to pass over the crosswalk).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the method of identifying a crosswalk and pedestrians then performing the expressive maneuver as taught by Schmitt to incorporate Sweeney’s right-of-way engine to pass over the crosswalk when the vehicle has the right of way. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that identifying pedestrians and crosswalks then determining how the vehicle should behave is a necessary and required feature in autonomous vehicle safety design. This provides the benefit of safely operating an autonomous vehicle when approaching an intersection with other vehicles and pedestrians.
Regarding Claim 12, Schmitt and Sweeney remain as applied above in claim 11. Schmitt further teaches disabling, by the device, acceleration of the vehicle based on the determination that the vehicle does not have the right of way (see at least Schmitt, Para [0127]: “If all the entry conditions are satisfied, the vehicle 1204 performs an expressive maneuver to convey the vehicle's 1204 intent to the pedestrian 1206A.”; see at least Schmitt, Para [0129]: “the expressive vehicle system 1200 can determine the expressive maneuver to include a deceleration of the vehicle 1204 such that the vehicle 1204 stops a predetermined distance B away from the pedestrian 1206A.”; The system autonomously executes an expressive maneuver (deceleration) upon determining that all entry conditions (right of way) are satisfied. Disabling acceleration is an inherent step of decelerating the vehicle).
Regarding Claim 13, Schmitt and Sweeney remain as applied above in claim 10.
Schmitt does not explicitly teach the visual indicator comprises flashing of the stripe.
However, Sweeney, in the same field of endeavor teaches the visual indicator comprises flashing of the stripe (see at least Sweeney, Para [0070]: “…the intention signaling system 300 can increase a visual urgency in the intention output, such as changing the colors of the arrows, flashing the arrows at an increased frequency, or providing audio to the proximate entities... the intention signaling system 300 can flash colored lights…”; see at least Sweeney, Para [0069]: “…the output commands 382 can cause the visual system 393 to provide permissive visual content ( e.g., green arrows for the pedestrian or a projected crosswalk on the road).”; The intention signaling system can flash color changing arrows and at an increased frequency to communicate the intentions of the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control system logic as taught by Schmitt to incorporate the teachings of Sweeney’s intention signaling system of flashing the visual indicators to guide pedestrians. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the controller’s logic to flash the stripe to communicate with pedestrians. This provides the benefit of visually informing the pedestrians that it is safe to cross paths with the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 14, Schmitt and Sweeney remain as applied above in claim 11. Schmitt further teaches determining, by the device, if the position is located before the crosswalk (see at least Schmitt, Para [0129]: “the expressive vehicle system 1200 can determine the expressive maneuver to include a deceleration of the vehicle 1204 such that the vehicle 1204 stops a predetermined distance B away from the pedestrian 1206A.”; see at least Schmitt, Para [0133]: “For example, when the vehicle 1204 comes to a complete stop at least 5 meters away from the pedestrian 1206A, the pedestrian 1206A is more confident that the vehicle 1204 is stopping to allow the pedestrian 1206A to cross the road via the crosswalk 1212”; see at least Schmitt, FIG. 3; The system determines a specific stopping point before crosswalk).
Schmitt does not explicitly teach the visual indicator comprises a first pattern if the position is located before the crosswalk and the visual indicator comprises a second pattern if the position is not located before the crosswalk.
However, Sweeney, in the same field of endeavor teaches the visual indicator comprises a first pattern if the position is located before the crosswalk (see at least Sweeney, Para [0014]: “…the intention signaling system can utilize right-of-way information (e.g., a traffic signal or crosswalk indicator) to determine whether the AV or the proximate humans have right-of-way. If the proximate humans have right-of-way, the intention signaling system can generate a permissive output (e.g., display green arrows and/or project an image such as a crosswalk onto the pavement) that enables the humans to readily determine the AV's acquiescence.”; The Examiner Interprets, under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, the vehicle determines that the pedestrian has the right-of-way for the position to be located before the crosswalk and perform a stopping maneuver. The permissive output (first pattern) is displayed when yielding that corresponds to stopping before the crosswalk) and the visual indicator comprises a second pattern if the position is not located before the crosswalk (see at least Sweeney, Para [0014]: “…the intention signaling system can utilize right-of-way information (e.g., a traffic signal or crosswalk indicator) to determine whether the AV or the proximate humans have right-of-way…If the AV has right-of-way, the intention signaling system can generate an intention output indicating that the AV will proceed before the humans. This permissive output can also include visual and/or audible feedback (e.g., flashing red lights or a pedestrian halt symbol on a display).”; The Examiner Interprets, under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, the system determines that the vehicle has the right-of-way and is not required to locate the stop position before the crosswalk. The permissive output (second pattern) is displayed to alert pedestrians that the vehicle will continue driving).
Sweeney’s teaching of a “permissive output” is activated when a pedestrian has the right-of-way that corresponds to the vehicle indicating that it will stop before the crosswalk and projects a crosswalk onto the pavement (a first pattern). Furthermore, Sweeney teaches an “intention output” that is used when the vehicle intends to proceed and displays flashing red lights or a halt symbol to inform the pedestrian not to cross (a second pattern) when the determined position is not located before the crosswalk.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the expressive vehicle system of Schmitt in view of Sweeney by incorporating different visual patterns based upon determining if the vehicle will stop before the crosswalk. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enhance the visual communication of the vehicle’s intent to pedestrians. This provides the benefit of improving situational awareness and promoting pedestrian safety.
Regarding Claim 15. Schmitt teaches a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to (see at least Schmitt, Para [0154]: “Vehicle 1204 includes at least one processor 1402 (e.g., on-board, or remote) communicatively coupled to the at least sensor 1210 and configured to execute the computer executable instructions…Vehicle 1204 also includes computer-readable media 1404 ( e.g., memory or hard drives onboard or remote) storing computer-executable instructions.”; Schmitt explicitly discloses a processor and computer-readable medium (storage medium) storing executable instructions for the system): determine a position where a vehicle will stop based on current speed of the vehicle and rate of deceleration (see at least Schmitt, Para [0137]: “…the expressive vehicle system 1200 determines the deceleration profile 1302 based on the initial velocity VO of the vehicle 1204… the starting point can be further away from the pedestrian 1206A if the vehicle 1204 is travelling at a faster velocity so there is sufficient space to come to a complete stop”; The system determines a specific deceleration profile and stopping point based on the vehicle’s initial speed).
Schmitt does not explicitly teach project a visual indicator of the position onto a surface ahead of the vehicle.
However, Sweeney, in the same field of endeavor teaches project a visual indicator of the position onto a surface ahead of the vehicle (see at least Sweeney, Para [0054]: “the intention signaling system 235 can signal intention for the AV 200 by generating an intention output 237 utilizing a combination of the output types, such as a displayed output in combination with an audio output… the intention signaling system 235 can project images onto the roadway…forward directional arrows indicating the path that the AV 200 will travel through an intersection.”; see at least Sweeney, Para [0084]: “the intention signaling system 235 can utilize the projector 412 to provide a projected output 416 (e.g., a projected crosswalk) further indicating that the AV 400 is permitting the pedestrians 418 to cross.”; The programmable instructions project to display visual indictors onto the roadway ahead of the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the vehicle’s programming instructions of Schmitt to incorporate the teachings of Sweeney’s processor to project a visual indicator onto the road surface. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these instructions to effectively convey the vehicle’s intention to slow down and stop. This provides the benefit of communicating the vehicle’s intention of slowing down and stopping to ensure the safety of pedestrians.
Regarding Claim 16, Schmitt and Sweeney remain as applied above in claim 15.
Schmitt does not explicitly teach the visual indicator is projected continuously until the vehicle comes to a complete stop.
However, Sweeney, in the same field of endeavor teaches the visual indicator is projected continuously until the vehicle comes to a complete stop (see at least Sweeney, Para [0081]: “The intention signaling system 235 can display the intention output until the AV 400 has passed the pedestrians 418 and then terminate the intention output thereafter.”; see at least Sweeney, Para [0097]: “Once the external entities have complied with the permissive or intention output, the intention signaling system 235 can terminate the output (580).”).
Sweeney’s disclose of maintaining an output until the vehicle has passed the pedestrians or until the external entities have complied reflects the principle of maintaining the visual signal throughout the entire traffic event. In this context, the traffic event is the vehicle’s stopping maneuver, which is completed only when the vehicle comes to a full stop. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that projecting the visual indicator continuously for the entirety of the event is a required and necessary safety feature for the pedestrians and surrounding vehicles to be aware of the autonomous vehicle’s operations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the computer programming instructions of Schmitt to incorporate the teachings of Sweeney’s program instructions to project the visual continuously until the vehicle comes to a complete stop. This provides the benefit of enhancing communication for the duration of the entire event of the vehicle’s maneuver.
Regarding Claim 17, Schmitt and Sweeney remain as applied above in claim 15.
Schmitt does not explicitly teach the visual indicator comprises a stripe orientated horizontally to an orientation of the vehicle.
However, Sweeney, in the same field of endeavor teaches the visual indicator comprises a stripe orientated horizontally to an orientation of the vehicle (see at least Sweeney, Para [0084]: “…the intention signaling system 235 can utilize the projector 412 to provide a projected output 416 (e.g., a projected crosswalk) further indicating that the AV 400 is permitting the pedestrians 418 to cross.”; see at least Sweeney, FIG. 4A; Projection a crosswalk onto the road, a crosswalk fundamentally composes of one or more horizontal stripes).
Sweeney teaching of projecting a “crosswalk” provides the horizontal stripe from the intention signaling system to guide pedestrians safely across the road. It is well-understood that a crosswalk is composed of one or more horizontal stripes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to project a stripe visual that is horizontal in orientation of the vehicle to permit the pedestrians to cross.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the program instructions of Schmitt to incorporate the teachings of Sweeney to project a horizontal stripe. This provides the benefit of displaying a safe walking path for the pedestrians to cross the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 18, Schmitt and Sweeney remain as applied above in claim 15. Schmitt further teaches identify a crosswalk on the surface ahead of the vehicle (see at least Schmitt, Para [0125]: “…data representing the pedestrian 1206A of obtained using the at least one sensor 1210 and data representing a location of a crosswalk 1212 is obtained from a database… the expressive vehicle system 1200 also determines a distance between the pedestrian 1206A and the crosswalk 1212 (e.g., one or more boundaries of crosswalk 1212).”; The programmable instructions identifies a crosswalk a head of the vehicle from a database); and
scan the crosswalk and a surrounding area for pedestrians (see at least Schmitt, Para [0124]: “Vehicle 1204 includes at least one sensor 1210…configured to detect the objects…in the environment 1202 external to the vehicle 1204.”; see at least Schmitt, Para [0125]: “…data representing the pedestrian 1206A of obtained using the at least one sensor 1210 and data representing a location of a crosswalk 1212 is obtained from a database.”; The programmable instructions uses sensors to scan the environmental to obtain data representing pedestrians and a crosswalk);
the determination where the vehicle will stop is actuated based on the determination that the vehicle does not have the right of way (see at least Schmitt, Para [0128]: “…if the pedestrian 1206A is within 2 meters of a side of the crosswalk 1212, the expressive vehicle system 1200 determines that the pedestrian 1206A intends to cross the road via the crosswalk 1212 and therefore the vehicle 1204 performs an expressive maneuver.”; see at least Schmitt, Para [0125]: “the expressive vehicle system 1200 also determines a distance between the pedestrian 1206A and the crosswalk 1212 (e.g., one or more boundaries of crosswalk 1212).”; The expressive system determines the vehicle does not have the right of way from the intentions of the pedestrian and performs an expressive maneuver to determine a stop position).
Schmitt does not explicitly teach determine, if the vehicle has a right of way to pass over the crosswalk.
However, Sweeney, in the same field of endeavor teaches determine, if the vehicle has a right of way to pass over the crosswalk (see at least Sweeney, Para [0066]: “The right-of-way engine 350 can further analyze the sensor data 307 for external entities, such as other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and the like…For example, when identifying a pedestrian attempting to cross the road with or without a crosswalk, a default rule for the right-of-way engine 350 can be to generate a decision 352 indicating that the pedestrian has right-of-way. However, if the right-of-way engine 350 identifies a right-of-way indicator (e.g., a traffic signal), then the right-of-way engine 350 can generate the decision 352 based on the right-of-way indicator (e.g., green traffic light=AV's right-of-way).”; The right-of-way engine determines if the vehicle has the right of way to pass over the crosswalk).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the program instructions of identifying a crosswalk and pedestrians then performing the expressive maneuver to determine a stop position of the vehicle as taught by Schmitt to incorporate Sweeney’s right-of-way engine to pass over the crosswalk when the vehicle has the right of way. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that identifying pedestrians and crosswalks then determining how the vehicle should behave is a necessary and required feature in autonomous vehicle safety design. This provides the benefit of safely operating an autonomous vehicle when approaching an intersection with other vehicles and pedestrians.
Regarding Claim 19, Schmitt and Sweeney remain as applied above in claim 18. Schmitt further teaches in response to a determination that the vehicle does not have the right of way, disable acceleration of the vehicle (see at least Schmitt, Para [0127]: “If all the entry conditions are satisfied, the vehicle 1204 performs an expressive maneuver to convey the vehicle's 1204 intent to the pedestrian 1206A.”; see at least Schmitt, Para [0155]: “The expressive vehicle system 1200 includes control hardware 1406 that are used to control a movement of the vehicle 1204… particular control hardware 1406 includes deceleration hardware 1416… the deceleration hardware 1416 includes a throttle (e.g., like the throttle 402B shown in FIG. 4) to control the velocity of the vehicle 1204.”; see at least Schmitt, Para [0129]: “the expressive vehicle system 1200 can determine the expressive maneuver to include a deceleration of the vehicle 1204 such that the vehicle 1204 stops a predetermined distance B away from the pedestrian 1206A.”; The programmable instructions executes an expressive maneuver (deceleration) upon determining that all entry conditions (right of way) are satisfied. Disabling acceleration is an inherent step of decelerating the vehicle).
Regarding Claim 20, Schmitt and Sweeney remain as applied above in claim 17.
Schmitt does not explicitly teach the visual indicator comprises flashing of the stripe.
However, Sweeney, in the same field of endeavor teaches the visual indicator comprises flashing of the stripe (see at least Sweeney, Para [0070]: “…the intention signaling system 300 can increase a visual urgency in the intention output, such as changing the colors of the arrows, flashing the arrows at an increased frequency, or providing audio to the proximate entities... the intention signaling system 300 can flash colored lights…”; see at least Sweeney, Para [0069]: “…the output commands 382 can cause the visual system 393 to provide permissive visual content ( e.g., green arrows for the pedestrian or a projected crosswalk on the road).”; The programmable instructions command the intention signaling system to flash color changing arrows to communicate the intentions of the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the programmable instruction logic as taught by Schmitt to incorporate the teachings of Sweeney’s intention signaling system of flashing the visual indicators to guide pedestrians. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the controller’s instructions to flash the stripe to alert pedestrians. This provid