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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on December 18th 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Status of the Claims
This is in response to the applicant’s filling on November 24th 2025.
Clam 13 is canceled
Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are pending examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but are moot. While the Examiner notes that the applicant is arguing the claim limitations recite " …determine the lateral offsets for the set of vehicles, wherein each lateral offset of the lateral offsets is determined for a respective vehicle in the set of vehicles based at least in part on indication of the load exerted on the ground surface of the respective vehicle… “. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn; However, upon further consideration a new ground(s) of rejection is made for Claims 1 and 2 over Kenyon (Patent No. US20200079388A1) in view of Wiberg (Patent No. EP4390321A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenyon (Patent No. US20200079388A1) in view of Wiberg (Patent No. EP4390321A1).
Regarding claim 1 Kenyon teaches a computer system comprising a processor device configured to determine lateral offsets to a predefined path for set of vehicles; (See Kenyon paragraph 0027 and paragraph 0014 “…The vehicular computer can be a factory-fitted system or an add-on unit retrofitted into a vehicle. Furthermore, the vehicular computer can be a general-purpose computer or a dedicated, special-purpose computer. No limitations are imposed on the location of the vehicular computer relative to the vehicle. According to the embodiments shown in FIG. 5, the disclosed system can include memory 505, one or more processors 510, sensor data module 515, offset displacement calculation module 520 …different vehicles on the road causes the vehicle to be staggered with respect to one another…”); the set of vehicles being arranged to travel on the predefined path, the processor device is further configured to; (See Kenyon paragraph 0015; “…FIG. 1A shows an original path Y1Y2 taken by vehicles 102A, 102B, 102C on roadway 106 based on conventional “middle of the road” driving. In other words, 102A, 102B, 102C are traveling along the same common straight line, e.g., following one another with little or no horizontal deviation with respect to one another…”);
determine the lateral offsets for the set of vehicles; (See Kenyon paragraph 0024; “…FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate various examples of offset displacements applicable to tire placement of vehicles...”);
wherein each lateral offset is determined for a respective vehicle in the set of vehicles, and wherein the lateral offsets are determined to laterally distribute the loads of the set of vehicles relative to the predefined path; (See Kenyon paragraph 0030, 0032, 0036 and Figure 4A-B; “Offset displacement calculation module 520 is configured to receive information from sensor data module 515 and/or external sources to calculate an offset displacement for tire placement relative to the current position of the vehicle. The received information can be based on one or more factors such as the location information of the structural artifacts/deformities on the roadway, the instantaneous position of objects located on the portion of the roadway, operational data associated with the at least one tire, and the environmental data external to the vehicle. The operational data can be (or, related to) a speed of travel of at least one tire, an acceleration of the at least one tire, a direction of travel of the at least one tire, a vehicular weight on the at least one tire, and a frictional force of the roadway impacting the at least one tire. In some embodiments, the offset displacement has a value and a direction, e.g., relative to a current position of the vehicle or relative to a detected structural artifact on the roadway… vehicle guidance module 530 can predict an expected outcome of impact between the vehicle and a structural artifact; calculate a probability of the expected outcome of impact between the vehicle and a structural artifact and also determine that the probability is greater than a threshold value. In some embodiments, vehicle guidance module 530 can optionally calculate a metric indicative of savings from the reduced wear and tear of the roadway, based on applying the offset displacement to the current position of the vehicle…FIG. 7 illustrates steps of a flowchart associated with calculating an offset displacement applicable to tire placement, according to some embodiments of the disclosed technology. Starting at step 702, the vehicular computer receives (e.g., from one or more sensors coupled to the vehicle or a remote server) location information identifying structural artifacts (such as ruts, potholes, bumps, dips, etc.) on a surface of a portion of the roadway and/or instantaneous position of objects located on the portion of the roadway. At step 704, the vehicular computer receives (e.g., from one or more sensors coupled to the vehicle or a remote server) positional data of the vehicle indicating a current position of the vehicle with respect to the roadway. At step 706, operational data associated with at least one tire of the vehicle is received (e.g., from a sensor coupled to the vehicle) by the vehicular computer. The operational data can be measured along radial, tangential, and lateral directions with respect to a circumference of the at least one tire. Examples of operational data can include slip ratio, brake pressure or braking torque, engine torque, wheel torque, steering wheel angle, and the like. External environmental data is received (at step 708) from a temperature sensor coupled to the vehicle. Examples of sensors can be video cameras, still cameras, LIDAR units, radar units, GPS units, speed sensors, acceleration sensors, environmental sensors such as temperature/weather sensors for sensing ambient weather, operational data associated with one or more vehicle parts such as a tire, infrared, or thermal cameras, radiation sensors for detecting chemicals in the air, or otherwise any suitable sensors coupled to the vehicle. Sensors can be attached anywhere in the vehicle, e.g., to the top, to the rear, on the sides, underneath, on or inside at least one tire of the vehicle, or any other suitable position inside or outside the vehicle….”); and for each vehicle in the set of vehicles, trigger the respective vehicle to travel the predefined path using the determined respective lateral offset; (See Kenyon paragraph 0024-0025; “FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate various examples of offset displacements applicable to tire placement of vehicles. For example, FIG. 4A demonstrates vehicle 402 traveling on roadway 406 along an original direction Y1Y2. Without applying an offset displacement, vehicle 402 would have traveled along the direction Y1Y2. By applying an offset displacement 408 with respect to its original path Y1Y2, the original path Y1Y2 of vehicle 402 gets modified to travel along new path Y3Y4, shown with respect to an axis passing through the left tires of vehicle 402.
FIG. 4B illustrates a scenario in which vehicle 402 applies an offset displacement (e.g., a maximum offset 410 with respect to its original path Y1Y2) to avoid hitting the side of the roadway 406. If the width of the car is L and the distance (with respect to original path Y1Y2) to the edge of roadway 406 is denoted as 412, then the maximum offset displacement 410 can be equated as distance 412-L. As a result, vehicle 402 modifies its path from Y1Y2 to Y3Y4 in FIG. 4B, shown with respect to an axis passing through the left tires of vehicle 402. In some embodiments, if the offset displacement (e.g., measured by the vehicles with respect to the middle of the roadway) applied by vehicle 1 is D1, the other vehicles on the roadway are informed of D1, either directly by the vehicle, or indirectly by a server. Upon receiving information about vehicle 1 applying an offset D1 the other vehicles can apply offsets D1+X1, D1+X2, D1+X3, where X1, X2, X3 can be random numbers generated by the vehicular computers of the other vehicles on the roadway with the constraint that the offset calculated as Di−+Xi does not exceed the width of the roadway. In some embodiments, X1, X2, X3 . . . can be random numbers generated using different random distributions.”).
Kenyon does not explicitly teach but Wiberg teaches, wherein each lateral offset of the lateral offsets is determined for a respective vehicle in the set of vehicles based at least in part on indication of the load exerted on the ground surface of the respective vehicle; (See Wiberg paragraph 0119 and 0120; “Embodiments herein may allow for a mission planning of the at least one vehicle 1 to be adjusted to travel on surface areas in the set of surface areas 20 which are known to be less travelled than other surface areas. A predefined path of the at least one vehicle 1 may be adjusted to be the at least one travelling path 40, e.g., as determined in action 302. For a straight road the at least one travelling path may be determined to be the predefined path altered simply by an offset from the intended path while for a curve, such an approach may not be possible since turning the at least one vehicle 1 in a curve may cause exaggerated wear and therefore different approaches may be needed to smoothen the wear of the curve. One example would be to change an offset of the predefined path throughout the curve e.g., depending on a current where in the set of surface areas 20, and/or a curvature through the curve may need to be different to avoid exaggerated wear.
In any of the above-mentioned examples and/or embodiments, wear and/or wear values may, additionally or alternatively, may be obtained by one or more vehicles, e.g., the at least one vehicle 1 and/or the one or more second vehicles 2, being configured to respectively measure or estimate a load applied to, or applied by, each respective axle and/or wheel of the respective vehicle. A wear and/or wear value of the set of surface areas 20 may be determined at least partly by the respective load applied to, or applied by each respective axle and/or wheel of the respective vehicle. The respective load applied to, or applied by each respective axle and/or wheel of the respective vehicle may be obtained by sensors arranged on the respective vehicle, wherein the sensors may measure the axle load and/or weight. Additionally or alternatively, the respective load applied to, or applied by each respective axle and/or wheel of the respective vehicle may be estimated based on an axle configuration of the respective vehicle. The respective load may be mapped to the axle configuration of the respective vehicle to estimate the load distribution, i.e. the load applied by or applied to each respective axle and/or wheel of the respective vehicle. In this way, the wear and/or wear value may be minimized and/or accounted for with respect to each axle's and/or wheel-pair estimated and/or measured exposure on the set of surface areas 20.
for each vehicle in the set of vehicles, obtain an indication of a load exerted on a ground surface of the respective vehicle; (See Wiberg paragraph 0070; “The total load that has been applied to the respective surface area by the one or more second vehicles may for example be determined based on the number of times the respective surface area has been travelled and based on the load applied for each of the times the respective surface area was travelled. The load applied by each vehicle may for example be determined either by obtaining a total weight of the respective vehicle and/or by obtaining an indication of whether or not the respective vehicle is loaded or unloaded. For some examples, the total load applied to the respective surface area by the one or more second vehicles may for example be determined based on a load per axle of the one or more second vehicles travelling the respective surface area.”).
Both Kenyon and Wiberg are in the same field of vehicle path determination. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Kenyon determine lateral offsets to a predefined path for set of vehicles with Wiberg the load exerted on the ground and lateral offset. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Kenyon by including the load exerted on the ground and lateral offset that allows more accurate define the vehicle path. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With respect to the independent claim 2, please see rejection above with respect to claim 1 which is commensurate in scope to claim 2, with claim 1 being drown to system, claim 2 being drawn to an invention method.
Regarding claim 4 Kenyon in view of Wiberg teaches the method of claim 2, Kenyon further teaches wherein each determined lateral offset is a respective variable lateral offset to the predefined path; (See Kenyon paragraph 0018 and 0025; “…car 204A can modify its path by applying an offset displacement to its tire placement, thereby reducing degradation of roadway 206. Also, car 204B can apply another offset displacement to its tire placement. The offset displacement applied by cars 204A and 204B are different and thus result in cars driving in different portions of roadway 206…FIG. 4B illustrates a scenario in which vehicle 402 applies an offset displacement (e.g., a maximum offset 410 with respect to its original path Y1Y2) to avoid hitting the side of the roadway 406…”).
Regarding claim 7 Kenyon in view of Wiberg teaches the method of claim 2, Kenyon further teaches wherein the predefined path comprises a set of segments, and wherein determining the lateral offsets for the set of vehicles comprises determining a respective lateral offset for each respective segment for each respective vehicle, and wherein the lateral offsets for the set of segments are determined to laterally distribute the loads of the set of vehicles relative to the predefined path for each respective segment; (See Kenyon paragraph 0024-0025; “FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate various examples of offset displacements applicable to tire placement of vehicles. For example, FIG. 4A demonstrates vehicle 402 traveling on roadway 406 along an original direction Y1Y2. Without applying an offset displacement, vehicle 402 would have traveled along the direction Y1Y2. By applying an offset displacement 408 with respect to its original path Y1Y2, the original path Y1Y2 of vehicle 402 gets modified to travel along new path Y3Y4, shown with respect to an axis passing through the left tires of vehicle 402.
FIG. 4B illustrates a scenario in which vehicle 402 applies an offset displacement (e.g., a maximum offset 410 with respect to its original path Y1Y2) to avoid hitting the side of the roadway 406. If the width of the car is L and the distance (with respect to original path Y1Y2) to the edge of roadway 406 is denoted as 412, then the maximum offset displacement 410 can be equated as distance 412-L. As a result, vehicle 402 modifies its path from Y1Y2 to Y3Y4 in FIG. 4B, shown with respect to an axis passing through the left tires of vehicle 402. In some embodiments, if the offset displacement (e.g., measured by the vehicles with respect to the middle of the roadway) applied by vehicle 1 is D1, the other vehicles on the roadway are informed of D1, either directly by the vehicle, or indirectly by a server. Upon receiving information about vehicle 1 applying an offset D1 the other vehicles can apply offsets D1+X1, D1+X2, D1+X3, where X1, X2, X3 can be random numbers generated by the vehicular computers of the other vehicles on the roadway with the constraint that the offset calculated as Di−+Xi does not exceed the width of the roadway. In some embodiments, X1, X2, X3 . . . can be random numbers generated using different random distributions.”).
Regarding claim 9 Kenyon in view of Wiberg teaches the method of claim 2, Kenyon further teaches wherein the method further comprises: by the processor device, obtaining an indication of a first position, the first position being a current or estimated future position of any one out of: an obstacle, manual actor, and a separate vehicle, in the predefined path, and wherein determining the lateral offset of the set of vehicles is based on the obtained first position; (See Kenyon paragraph 0026 and 0030; “FIGS. 4A and 4B demonstrate that a value of offset displacement can lie lying between a minimum value (e.g., zero) and a maximum value (e.g., dependent on the width of the roadway or distance to other obstacles on the roadway… Offset displacement calculation module 520 is configured to receive information from sensor data module 515 and/or external sources to calculate an offset displacement for tire placement relative to the current position of the vehicle. The received information can be based on one or more factors such as the location information of the structural artifacts/deformities on the roadway, the instantaneous position of objects located on the portion of the roadway, operational data associated with the at least one tire, and the environmental data external to the vehicle…”).
Regarding claim 10 Kenyon in view of Wiberg teaches the method of claim 2, Kenyon further teaches wherein the method further comprises: by the processor device, obtain an indication of a second position in the predefined path, the second position being a position wherein at least one vehicle in the set of vehicles has detected a poor traction in the predefined path, and wherein determining the lateral offsets of the set of vehicles is based on the obtained second position; (See Kenyon paragraph 0012 and 0013; “…A driving path of a first vehicle is caused to be staggered with respect to the driving path of a second vehicle by applying different offset displacements to the original driving paths of the first vehicle and the second vehicle. The offset displacements applied by each vehicle can be calculated in real-time based on environmental variables and vehicular data collected from sensors associated with the first vehicle and the second vehicle…The offset displacement when applied to the vehicle causes the original path of the vehicle to be dynamically modified. As a result, applying the offset displacement for tire placement results in reduced degradation of the roadway. The offset displacement can be applied regardless of the presence of structural artifacts like potholes, bumps, dips, or ruts on the road…”).
Regarding claim 11 Kenyon in view of Wiberg teaches the method of claim 2, Kenyon further teaches further comprising by the processor device of the computer system, obtaining an indication that a load exerted on a ground surface by at least one vehicle in the set of vehicles has changed, and by the processor device, updating the lateral offsets for the set of vehicles, based on the obtained indication that the load exerted on the load surface has changed; (See Kenyon paragraph 0015-0016; “FIGS. 1A and 1B illustrate an example scenario of roadway degradation based on conventional driving. For example, FIG. 1A shows an original path Y1Y2 taken by vehicles 102A, 102B, 102C on roadway 106 based on conventional “middle of the road” driving. In other words, 102A, 102B, 102C are traveling along the same common straight line, e.g., following one another with little or no horizontal deviation with respect to one another. FIG. 1B shows the undesired effect of such driving practice. For example, FIG. 1B shows grooves, ruts, roadway deformities, or generally artifacts 110A, 110B, 110C, 110D formed from repeated “middle of the road” driving. The artifacts may not necessarily be the same. For example, certain sections of the roadway may be affected greater than other sections of the roadway. Further, the shape (e.g., size, shape, width, depth, etc.) of the deformities may be different.
FIGS. 1C and 1D illustrate an example scenario of reduced roadway degradation based on employing the disclosed technology. For example, FIG. 1C shows vehicles 102A, 102B, 102C are travelling staggered or offset with respect to one another. As a result, the deformities on the roadway, shown as 120A, 120B, 1200, 120D, 120E, 120F in FIG. 1D, are less severe because the same section of the roadway is not taken by multiple vehicles, effectively spreading the wear and tear of roadway over a larger portion of the roadway, thereby reducing the degradation of the roadway. The offset displacement applied by a vehicle can be measured with a suitable axis/frame of reference associated with the vehicle (e.g., left tires or right tires) or the roadway. For example, offset displacement can be measured with respect to the axis Y1Y2 in the middle of the roadway.”).
Regarding claim 12 Kenyon in view of Wiberg teaches the method of claim 2 and Kenyon further teaches, a vehicle comprising a processor device to perform the method of claim 2; (See Kenyon paragraph 0027 and paragraph 0014 “…The vehicular computer can be a factory-fitted system or an add-on unit retrofitted into a vehicle. Furthermore, the vehicular computer can be a general-purpose computer or a dedicated, special-purpose computer. … FIG. 5, the disclosed system can include memory 505, one or more processors 510, sensor data module 515, offset displacement calculation module 520 …different vehicles on the road causes the vehicle to be staggered with respect to one another…”).
Regarding claim 13 Kenyon in view of Wiberg teaches the method of claim 2 and Kenyon further teaches, a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by a processor device, the method of claim 2; (See Kenyon paragraph 0033-0034; “FIG. 6 illustrates an example architecture of a remote computer, according to some embodiments of the disclosed technology. Referring to FIG. 6, an example internal architecture of a remote server (or, servers) is shown, according to some embodiments of the disclosed technology. According to the embodiments shown in FIG. 6, the disclosed system can include memory 605, one or more processors 610, communications module 615, and map module 620. Memory 605 and processor 610 are similar to memory 505 and processor 510 discussed in connection with FIG. 5.
Communications module 615 exchanges information (e.g., about objects or structural artifacts on a roadway) with geocoding databases such as GOOGLE, vehicular computers of vehicles moving on roadways, or other servers. In some embodiments, communications module 615 can use an application programming interface (API) to exchange information with various remotes servers.”).
Regarding claim 14 Kenyon in view of Wiberg teaches the method of claim 2 and Kenyon further teaches, a control system comprising one or more control units configured to perform the method of claim 2; (See Kenyon paragraph 0027; “FIG. 5 illustrates an example architecture of a vehicular computer according to some embodiments of the disclosed technology. The vehicular computer (e.g., one or more data processors) is capable of executing algorithms, software routines, instructions, based on processing data provided by a variety of sources related to the control of the vehicle. The vehicular computer can be a factory-fitted system or an add-on unit retrofitted into a vehicle. Furthermore, the vehicular computer can be a general-purpose computer or a dedicated, special-purpose computer. No limitations are imposed on the location of the vehicular computer relative to the vehicle. According to the embodiments shown in FIG. 5, the disclosed system can include memory 505, one or more processors 510, sensor data module 515, offset displacement calculation module 520, communications module 525, and vehicle guidance module 530. Other embodiments of the present technology may include some, all, or none of these modules and components, along with other modules, applications, data, and/or components. Still yet, some embodiments may incorporate two or more of these modules and components into a single module and/or associate a portion of the functionality of one or more of these modules with a different module.”).
Regarding claim 15 a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor device, cause the processor device to perform the method of claim 2; (See Keyon paragraph 0027; “FIG. 5 illustrates an example architecture of a vehicular computer according to some embodiments of the disclosed technology. The vehicular computer (e.g., one or more data processors) is capable of executing algorithms, software routines, instructions, based on processing data provided by a variety of sources related to the control of the vehicle. The vehicular computer can be a factory-fitted system or an add-on unit retrofitted into a vehicle. Furthermore, the vehicular computer can be a general-purpose computer or a dedicated, special-purpose computer. No limitations are imposed on the location of the vehicular computer relative to the vehicle. According to the embodiments shown in FIG. 5, the disclosed system can include memory 505, one or more processors 510, sensor data module 515, offset displacement calculation module 520, communications module 525, and vehicle guidance module 530. Other embodiments of the present technology may include some, all, or none of these modules and components, along with other modules, applications, data, and/or components. Still yet, some embodiments may incorporate two or more of these modules and components into a single module and/or associate a portion of the functionality of one or more of these modules with a different module.”).
Claims 3,5,6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenyon (Patent No. US20200079388A1) in view of Kassar (Patent No. US12195041B2).
Regarding claim 3 Kenyon teaches the method of claim 2, Kenyon does not teach but Kassar teaches, wherein each determined lateral offset is a respective constant lateral offset to the predefined path; (See Kassar column 5, line 36-38; “identifying each sub-interval in the lane biasing interval where the final lateral offset is constant; comparing a length of the identified sub-interval to a threshold value…”).
Both Kenyon and Kassar are in the same field of vehicle path determination. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Kenyon determine lateral offsets to a predefined path for set of vehicles with Kassar constant lateral offset. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Kenyon by including the constant lateral offset that allows more accurate define the vehicle path. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Kenyon teaches the method of claim 4, Kenyon does not teach but Kassar teaches, wherein the respective variable lateral offset to the predefined path is configured to be variable based on a longitudinal position of the respective vehicle, when the respective vehicle is travelling the predefined path; (See Kassar column 16, line 30-37; “As shown in FIG. 7, a lane biasing interval 702 comprises a portion 710 of a wide lane 700 prior to a lane split 704. Portion 710 has: a length L set to a calibration parameter; an end E located a calibratable distance D (here D=0) from a start S.sub.lanesplit of the lane split 712; a pre-lane biasing interval 706 in which a lateral offset weight is set to zero or a small value; and a post-lane biasing interval 708 in which a lateral offset weight is set to zero or a small value.”).
Both Kenyon and Kassar are in the same field of vehicle path determination. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Kenyon determine lateral offsets to a predefined path for set of vehicles with Kassar based on a longitudinal position of the respective vehicle. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Kenyon by including the based on a longitudinal position of the respective vehicle that allows more accurate define the vehicle path. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6 Kenyon teaches the method of claim 4, Kenyon does not teach but Kassar teaches, wherein the respective variable lateral offset to the predefined path is configured to be variable based on a variable width of the predefined path; (See Kassar column 16-17, line 51-3; “As shown in FIG. 9, a lane biasing interval 902 comprises a portion 910 of a wide lane 900 prior to a lane width variation 912 (for example, a narrowing). Portion 910 has: a length L set to a calibration parameter; an end E located a calibratable distance D (here D=0) from a start S.sub.narrowing of a width change interval 914; a pre-lane biasing interval 906 in which a lateral offset weight is set to zero or a small value; and a post-lane biasing interval 908 in which a lateral offset weight is set to zero or a small value. As shown in FIG. 10, a lane biasing interval 1002 comprises a portion 1010 of a wide lane 1000 that begins prior to a lane width variation 1012 (for example, a narrowing) and ends after the lane width variation 1012. The lane biasing interval 1002 can have a predefined length L and an end E located adjacent to or a pre-defined distance D from a start S.sub.narrowing of width change interval 1014. The present solution is not limited to the particulars of FIG. 10. In other scenarios, the end E of the lane biasing interval 1002 resides prior to (instead of after as shown) the start S.sub.narrowing of the lane width variation 1012.”).
Both Kenyon and Kassar are in the same field of vehicle path determination. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Kenyon determine lateral offsets to a predefined path for set of vehicles with Kassar based on a variable width. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Kenyon by including the based on a variable width that allows more accurate define the vehicle path. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8 Kenyon teaches the method of claim 7, Kenyon does not teach but Kassar teaches, wherein the lateral offsets for at least one segment in the set of segments are determined such that the set of vehicles can travel the at least one segment in two different directions; (See Kassar column 15, line 37-46 and column 19, line 45-67; “The computing device also obtains map data in 506 and optionally intent data in 508. The map data specifies lanes, lane features (for example, curbs, boundary marks or lines, one-way or two-way travel direction(s), speed limits, etc.) and intersections. The intent data specifies an intent of the vehicle to travel straight in a given lane, to turn right at a given intersection, to turn left at the given intersection, to travel in particular lane(s), to travel on particular side(s) of lane(s) (for example, center, left or right side of a lane), and/or to travel in particular lane(s) after lane split(s)…Subsequently, the final lateral offsets, weights and reference path are used in 520 to generate a refined reference path of travel for the vehicle. Illustrative refined reference paths 2400, 2500, 2600 are shown in FIGS. 24-26. The refined reference path of travel is used in 522 to adjust a trajectory for the vehicle. In 524, the vehicle is caused to follow the adjusted trajectory in a real-world environment. Subsequently, 526 is performed where method 500 ends or other operations are performed (for example, return to 502). As evident from the above discussion, the present disclosure concerns implementing systems and methods for biasing a trajectory of a vehicle. The methods comprise: identifying a lane biasing interval of a lane in which the vehicle is to travel based on a lane width; obtaining a reference path of travel for the vehicle that passes through the lane biasing interval; computing a lateral offset from each index point of the reference path that resides in the lane biasing interval; assigning weights to the lateral offsets; generating a refined reference path of travel for the vehicle using the lateral offsets, weights and reference path of travel for the vehicle; adjusting the trajectory of the vehicle using the refined reference path of travel; and/or causing the vehicle to follow the trajectory which has been adjusted.”).
Both Kenyon and Kassar are in the same field of vehicle path determination. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Kenyon determine lateral offsets to a predefined path for set of vehicles with Kassar the set of vehicles can travel the at least one segment in two different directions. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Kenyon by including the set of vehicles can travel the at least one segment in two different direction that allows more accurate define the vehicle path. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIDIA KWIATKOWSKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5161. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666