Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster, et al., US 2023/0124314 A1, in view of Ersal, et al., US 2020/0406969 A1.
As per Claim 1, Foster teaches a vehicle control apparatus (¶ 63; control computer 150 and control subsystems 146 of Figure 1) comprising at least one processor (¶ 69; processors 170 of Figure 1) configured to implement:
an entry prohibition area setter that sets an entry prohibition area of an ego vehicle, based on at least one of a movement prediction of an obstacle, and/or road information (¶ 133);
a target trajectory generator that calculates a target trajectory in future of the ego vehicle under a constraint of not entering into the entry prohibition area (¶ 136).
Foster does not expressly teach: a vehicle controller that controls a traveling of the ego vehicle based on the target trajectory, wherein, when the target trajectory generator calculates the target trajectory for changing lanes from a changing origin lane to a changing destination lane, the entry prohibition area setter changes the entry prohibition area, based on a position in a lateral direction of the ego vehicle with respect to the changing origin lane or the changing destination lane. Ersal teaches: a vehicle controller that controls a traveling of the ego vehicle based on the target trajectory (¶¶ 161-162), wherein, when the target trajectory generator calculates the target trajectory for changing lanes from a changing origin lane to a changing destination lane, the entry prohibition area setter changes the entry prohibition area (¶¶ 148-151; to enable a more aggressive lane change), based on a position in a lateral direction of the ego vehicle with respect to the changing origin lane or the changing destination lane (¶¶ 161-163). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the target trajectory generator of Foster with the lane change control system of Ersal, in order to ensure greater vehicle stability and lower risk of slip during a lane change.
As per Claim 2, Foster teaches that after the position in the lateral direction goes beyond a reference position which is set within a lateral range of the changing origin lane and the changing destination lane, to the changing destination lane side, the entry prohibition area setter sets the entry prohibition area such that the ego vehicle avoids a collision with the obstacle which exists in the changing destination lane without returning to the changing origin lane (¶¶ 34-35, 38-41; based on a “minimum avoidance distance”).
As per Claim 3, Foster teaches that after the position in the lateral direction goes beyond the reference position, the entry prohibition area setter sets the entry prohibition area such that an inter-vehicle distance between the obstacle and the ego vehicle is secured greater than or equal to a set distance so that the ego vehicle avoids the collision with the obstacle which exists in the changing destination lane without returning to the changing origin lane (¶¶ 123-125).
As per Claim 4, Foster teaches that after the position in the lateral direction goes beyond the reference position, the entry prohibition area setter sets the entry prohibition area such that the ego vehicle does not deviate from the changing destination lane and the entry prohibition area such that an inter-vehicle distance between the obstacle and the ego vehicle is secured greater than or equal to a set distance so that the ego vehicle avoids the collision with a front obstacle which is the obstacle existing in front of the ego vehicle in the changing destination lane without returning to the changing origin lane (¶¶ 135-136; “the autonomous vehicle moves from a current lane to a different lane before the autonomous vehicle is within a predetermined distance from the motorcycle”).
As per Claim 5, Foster teaches that the reference position is a lane marking which indicates a boundary between the changing origin lane and the changing destination lane (¶ 97).
As per Claim 6, Foster teach that the entry prohibition area setter determines whether or not a present state corresponds to an exception regarding the ego vehicle (¶¶ 104-105; e.g., “wrong detection of motorcycle speed”); and when determining that it corresponds to the exception, the entry prohibition area setter sets the entry prohibition area such that the ego vehicle avoids the collision with the obstacle which exists in the changing destination lane by returning to the changing origin lane, even after the position in the lateral direction goes beyond the reference position (¶¶ 113-114).
As per Claim 7, Foster teaches that the exception is a case where an absolute value of acceleration or deceleration required for the ego vehicle to avoid the collision with the obstacle without returning to the changing origin lane is greater than or equal to a determination value (¶¶ 84-85).
As per Claim 8, Foster teaches that the exception is a case where a space greater than or equal to a determination value for the ego vehicle to change lanes cannot be secured in the changing destination lane (¶ 105; e.g., based on “the length of time that the detected motorcycle is within a pre-determined distance away from the autonomous vehicle”).
As per Claim 9, Foster teaches that after the position in the lateral direction goes beyond the reference position, the entry prohibition area setter sets a boundary line which crosses the changing origin lane and the changing destination lane in a lateral direction on the ego vehicle side by greater than or equal to the set distance from the obstacle which exists in the changing destination lane, and sets the entry prohibition area on the obstacle side of the boundary line (¶¶ 146-147; to avoid objects 802 and 802B of Figure 8).
As per Claim 10, Foster teaches that the entry prohibition area setter sets the set distance to a distance less than or equal to the inter-vehicle distance between the ego vehicle and the obstacle at a time point when the position in the lateral direction goes beyond the reference position (¶¶ 174-175).
As per Claim 11, Foster does not expressly teach that before the position in the lateral direction goes beyond the reference position, the entry prohibition area setter sets the entry prohibition area such that a space where the ego vehicle can travel in the changing origin lane is left on the changing origin lane side of the obstacle and the inter-vehicle distance between the obstacle and the ego vehicle is secured greater than or equal to a set distance. Ersal teaches that before the position in the lateral direction goes beyond the reference position, the entry prohibition area setter sets the entry prohibition area such that a space where the ego vehicle can travel in the changing origin lane is left on the changing origin lane side of the obstacle (¶¶ 148-151; to enable a more aggressive lane change) and the inter-vehicle distance between the obstacle and the ego vehicle is secured greater than or equal to a set distance (¶¶ 153-154). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661