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 .
Priority
The present application’s claim to priority under Provisional US Application No. 63/493,280 (filing date 03/30/2023) is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9, filed 02/16/2026, with respect to the objection to claims 1, 5, 9, and 12-13 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement with Applicant’s argument that the amendments to claims 1, 5, 9, and 12-13 correct the previously-raised informalities. Accordingly, the objection to claims 1, 5, 9, and 12-13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9, filed 02/16/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims correct the previously-raised 35 USC 112(b) issues. The Examiner is in agreement with Applicant’s arguments, with the exception of claims 3 and 11.
With respect to claim 3, the claim recites “the second indication being arranged to indicate that the vehicle is to resume operating autonomously;” However, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the claims for the remove vehicle having stopped operating autonomously. While claim 3 does recite “operating the vehicle under control by the teleoperations operation arrangement on a third path past the work zone”, this does not amount to claiming that the vehicle has stopped operating autonomously, as the limitation does not preclude other aspects of autonomous control (e.g., other aspects of the autonomy system which enables the vehicle to operate autonomously; for example, control of propulsion system 308, sensor system 324, power system 332, and/or control system 336; see at least [0037] of the written description). Further, the claim recites “identifying a third path to the second point using the autonomy system;”. However, antecedent basis already exists in the claim for “operating the vehicle under control by the teleoperations operation arrangement on a third path…” Therefore, it is unclear whether these third paths are the same or different paths.
Claim 11 includes limitations substantially parallel to those discussed above with respect to claim 3, and therefore suffers the same deficiencies.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-20 has been withdrawn, and the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 3 and 11 has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 9-14, filed 02/16/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection(s) of independent claims 1, 9, and 16 and their respective dependent claims have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9, Applicant argues that Creusot and Levinson fail to teach or suggest each of the features of (emphasis added) “wherein the vehicle is configured to obtain, from the teleoperations monitor arrangement, one selected from a group including a waypoint and a first indication of a teleoperations operation arrangement assigned to remotely operate the vehicle past the work zone, wherein the waypoint is one selected from a group including a start point and an endpoint for use by the autonomy system to generate a new path that routes past the work zone.” The Examiner is in agreement with Applicant’s argument, as while Levinson does teach selecting from a group including a waypoint and a first indication of a teleoperations operation arrangement assigned to remotely operate the vehicle past the work zone (see at least [0085] and [0073], in particular pertaining to teleoperator selection of a candidate trajectory for reaching a destination), the waypoint is only selected from an endpoint for use by the autonomy system to generate a new path that routes past the work zone rather than from a group including a start point and an endpoint. Applicant further argues that Levinson fails to disclose the claimed teleoperations monitor arrangement because “[Levinson] does not disclose or reasonably suggest that a teleoperations monitor arrangement provides an indication of a teleoperations operation arrangement assigned to remotely operate a vehicle”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Levinson, and asserts that Levinson does teach both a teleoperations monitor arrangement and a teleoperations operation arrangement. The teleoperations monitor arrangement of Levinson corresponds to the communication between the vehicle and the teleoperator (see at least [0085], in particular that pertaining to transmitting from the vehicle a teleoperations request). This teleoperations monitor arrangement then provides “a first indication of a teleoperations operation assignment assigned to remotely operate the vehicle past the work zone” through the teleoperator’s selection of one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by the autonomous vehicle (i.e., a teleoperations operation assignment of assigning a candidate trajectory to facilitate travel). The Examiner notes that the term “arrangement” is quite broad and can reasonably encompass many forms of teleoperations monitoring/teleoperations operation.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 and their respective dependent claims has been withdrawn. However, in view of the modified scope of the claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Creusot, Levinson, and Filley.
Regarding independent claim 16, Applicant argues that Levinson fails to teach or suggest “the teleoperations monitor arrangement being arranged to determine whether the vehicle is capable of operating autonomously past the work zone.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 9. The Examiner respectfully asserts that Levinson does teach determining whether the vehicle is capable of operating autonomously past the work zone in at least paragraphs [0085], [0073], and FIG. 10. In particular, FIG. 10 illustrates that the teleoperator selects one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030, amounting to a determination that the vehicle is capable of operating autonomously past the work zone along the selected trajectory.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claim 16 and its respective dependent claims has been maintained to account for the modified scope of the claims.
Regarding dependent claim 17, Applicant argues that Levinson fails to teach or suggest “a teleoperations operation arrangement, the teleoperations operation arrangement configured to remotely operate the vehicle… wherein the teleoperations monitor arrangement is configured to monitor the vehicle and configured to assign the teleoperations operation arrangement to remotely operate the vehicle when it is determined that the vehicle is not capable of operating autonomously past the work zone.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments, and respectfully asserts that the teleoperation operations arrangement and the teleoperations monitor arrangement are each distinctly taught by Levinson (see discussion of independent claims 1 and 9 above). With respect to assigning the teleoperations assignment when it is determined that the vehicle is not capable of operating autonomously past the work zone, the Examiner respectfully asserts that Levinson provides this in at least [0085] and [0073], wherein when the planner 1064 of the vehicle is unable to proceed in the selection of an alternative path due to current confidence levels (i.e., the vehicle itself is not capable of autonomously operating the vehicle past the work zone), and utilizes the teleoperations arrangement which selects the candidate trajectory to facilitate travel by the autonomous vehicle.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 17 has been maintained to account for the modified scope of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “determining when a second indication is obtained, the second indication being arranged to indicate that the vehicle is to resume operating autonomously;” However, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the claims for stopping operating autonomously. While claim 3 does recite “operating the vehicle under control by the teleoperations operation arrangement on a third path past the work zone;”, this does not amount to claiming that the vehicle has halted operating autonomously. That is, the claims do not preclude the vehicle operating autonomously while also being under control by the teleoperations operation arrangement. Further, the claim recites “when it is determined that the second indication is obtained, identifying a third path to the second point…” However, antecedent basis already exists in clam 3 for “operating the vehicle under control by the teleoperations operation arrangement on a third path past the work zone;” Therefore, it is unclear whether these third paths are the same or different paths.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “the second indication being arranged to indicate that the vehicle is to resume operating autonomously;” However, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the claims for stopping operating autonomously. While claim 11 does recite “operate the vehicle under control by the teleoperations operation arrangement on a third path past the work zone”, this does not amount to claiming that the vehicle has halted operating autonomously. That is, the claims do not preclude the vehicle operating autonomously while also being under control by the teleoperations operation arrangement. Further, the claim recites “identify a third path to the second point using the autonomy system when it is determined that the second indication is obtained;” However, antecedent basis already exists in claim 11 for “operate the vehicle under control by the teleoperations operation arrangement on a third path past the work zone;” Therefore, it is unclear whether these third paths are the same or different paths.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 1-2 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creusot (US 2017/0242436 A1) in view of Levinson et al. (US 2017/0123429 A1), hereinafter Levinson, and in further view of Filley et al. (US 2017/0098373 A1), hereinafter Filley.
Regarding claim 1, Creusot teaches a method, comprising:
autonomously operating a vehicle along a first path from a first point to a second point,
Creusot teaches ([0046]): "Referring now to FIG. 4, a vehicle 10 is illustrated as traveling along a roadway 211 (i.e., to the right in the figure). Also illustrated are roadways 212 and 213 as well as three route segments (defined by a navigation system and stored, for example, in database 53) 221, 222, and 223, which correspond respectively to roadways 211, 212, and 213. In this example, it is assumed that route information associated with a destination (not illustrated) includes route segments 221 and 223..." Creusot further teaches ([0021]): "In various embodiments, the vehicle 10 is an autonomous vehicle and the road construction detection system 100 is incorporated into the autonomous vehicle 10 (hereinafter referred to as the autonomous vehicle 10). The autonomous vehicle 10 is, for example, a vehicle that is automatically controlled to carry passengers from one location to another."
the vehicle including an autonomy system that enables the vehicle to operate autonomously,
Creusot teaches ([0021]): "In various embodiments, the vehicle 10 is an autonomous vehicle and the road construction detection system 100 is incorporated into the autonomous vehicle 10 (hereinafter referred to as the autonomous vehicle 10). The autonomous vehicle 10 is, for example, a vehicle that is automatically controlled to carry passengers from one location to another." Creusot further teaches ([0022]): "In an exemplary embodiment, the autonomous vehicle 10 corresponds to a level four or level five automation system under the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) “J3016” standard taxonomy of automated driving levels. Using this terminology, a level four system indicates “high automation,” referring to a driving mode in which the automated driving system performs all aspects of the dynamic driving task, even if a human driver does not respond appropriately to a request to intervene. A level five system, on the other hand, indicates “full automation,” referring to a driving mode in which the automated driving system performs all aspects of the dynamic driving task under all roadway and environmental conditions that can be managed by a human driver." Creusot even further teaches ([0039]): "In accordance with various embodiments, controller 34 implements an autonomous driving system (ADS) 70... That is, suitable software and/or hardware components of controller 34..."
wherein the autonomy system includes a perception system;
Creusot teaches ([0021]): "In various embodiments, the vehicle 10 is an autonomous vehicle and the road construction detection system 100 is incorporated into the autonomous vehicle 10 (hereinafter referred to as the autonomous vehicle 10). The autonomous vehicle 10 is, for example, a vehicle that is automatically controlled to carry passengers from one location to another." Creusot further teaches ([0047]): "However, as illustrated in FIG. 4, a road construction zone 200 is present along the intended route. In accordance with various embodiments, and as described in further detail below, road construction sensing system 100 (e.g., construction-related object recognition module 320) determines the presence of construction-related objects 270 (outputs 303 in FIG. 6) in the environment. Next, a determination is made (e.g., via construction zone determination module 330) as to whether construction zone 200 is of the type that might impact travel of vehicle 10 along its intended route (based, for example, on the number and types of construction related objects 270 within construction zone 200). The result of this determination is shown as output 304 in FIG. 6."
identifying, using the perception system, a work zone;
Creusot teaches ([0047]): "However, as illustrated in FIG. 4, a road construction zone 200 is present along the intended route. In accordance with various embodiments, and as described in further detail below, road construction sensing system 100 (e.g., construction-related object recognition module 320) determines the presence of construction-related objects 270 (outputs 303 in FIG. 6) in the environment. Next, a determination is made (e.g., via construction zone determination module 330) as to whether construction zone 200 is of the type that might impact travel of vehicle 10 along its intended route (based, for example, on the number and types of construction related objects 270 within construction zone 200). The result of this determination is shown as output 304 in FIG. 6."
determining, using a planning system, whether the vehicle is able to continue operating along the first path after identifying the work zone;
Creusot teaches ([0047]): "However, as illustrated in FIG. 4, a road construction zone 200 is present along the intended route. In accordance with various embodiments, and as described in further detail below, road construction sensing system 100 (e.g., construction-related object recognition module 320) determines the presence of construction-related objects 270 (outputs 303 in FIG. 6) in the environment. Next, a determination is made (e.g., via construction zone determination module 330) as to whether construction zone 200 is of the type that might impact travel of vehicle 10 along its intended route (based, for example, on the number and types of construction related objects 270 within construction zone 200). The result of this determination is shown as output 304 in FIG. 6." Creusot further teaches ([0056]): "In one embodiment, construction zone determination module 330 receives outputs 303 associated with construction-related artifacts and objects by the various sensors and localizes them in 3D space by combining distance estimations and ray projection using the extrinsic parameters of the calibrated sensors. The nature and position of the construction-related objects 270 relative to the roadway lanes are used to determine various configurations of temporary traffic occlusion, including, without limitation: None (e.g., the objects are not on the road, but are located on a sidewalk or are associated with building construction), Partial (a portion, but not all, of a lane is occluded, allowing the car to nudge around the obstacle by using available free-space, regardless of mapped lane boundaries), Lane blocked (e.g., a lane is fully blocked and cannot be used by the vehicle, and thus the vehicle will attempt to change lanes), and Road blocked (e.g., no other lanes are available on the road, leading to a black-listing of the segment of road for use in subsequent route guidance)..."
when it is determined that the vehicle is not able to continue operating along the first path, determining, using the autonomy system, whether the autonomy system is able to identify a second path to the second point that routes past the work zone;
Creusot teaches ([0057]): "Next, at 706, information regarding the nature of construction zone 200 is transmitted to an external server (e.g., route database server 53 in FIG. 2) and then propagated to other modules within the vehicle to generate peripheral behaviors such as reducing speed, preventive calls to a remote expert, warning the passenger, and/or the like. The construction-zone information might include, for example, the geographical location of zone 200 (e.g., latitude, longitude, etc.), the severity of the zone (e.g., ‘lane blocked’, ‘road blocked’, ‘partial’, etc.), and the route segments that are affected (e.g., ‘route segment 223’)..." Creusot further teaches ([0058]): "Finally, at 707, vehicle 10 (and/or another vehicle) receives alternate route information associated with the destination, avoiding route segments affected by the travel-impacting construction zone 200. In FIG. 4, for example, this results in a new route that does not include route segment 223."
when it is determined that the autonomy system is able to identify the second path, autonomously operating the vehicle along the second path;
Creusot teaches [0048]): "If it is determined that construction zone 200 is likely to impact travel of vehicle 10, information related to construction zone 200 is related to an external server (e.g., database 53), which then provides to vehicle 10 information regarding an alternate route. In the illustrated embodiment, for example, the alternate route might include replacing route segment 223 with route segment 222 in order to reach the desired destination (not illustrated), thereby avoiding the travel-impacting construction zone 200." Creusot further teaches ([0058]): "Finally, at 707, vehicle 10 (and/or another vehicle) receives alternate route information associated with the destination, avoiding route segments affected by the travel-impacting construction zone 200. In FIG. 4, for example, this results in a new route that does not include route segment 223."
However, Creusot does not outright teach, when it is determined that the autonomy system is unable to identify the second path, requesting assistance from a teleoperations monitor arrangement, wherein the vehicle is configured to obtain, from the teleoperations monitor arrangement, one selected from a group including a waypoint and a first indication of a teleoperations operation arrangement assigned to remotely operate the vehicle past the work zone, wherein the waypoint is one selected from a group including… an endpoint for use by the autonomy system to generate a new path that routes past the work zone. Levinson teaches adaptive autonomous vehicle planner logic, comprising:
and when it is determined that the autonomy system is unable to identify the second path, requesting assistance from a teleoperations monitor arrangement,
Levinson teaches ([0085]): " In a second example, consider that planner 1064 has generated a number of trajectories that are coextensive with a planner-generated path 1044 regardless of a detected unidentified object 1046. Planner 1064 may also generate a subset of candidate trajectories 1040, but in this example, the planner is unable to proceed given present confidence levels. If planner 1064 fails to determine an alternative path, a teleoperation request may be transmitted. In this case, a teleoperator may select one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030 that is consistent with teleoperator-based path 1042."
wherein the vehicle is configured to obtain, from the teleoperations monitor arrangement, one selected from a group including a waypoint and a first indication of a teleoperations operation arrangement assigned to remotely operate the vehicle past the work zone,
Levinson teaches ([0085]): " In a second example, consider that planner 1064 has generated a number of trajectories that are coextensive with a planner-generated path 1044 regardless of a detected unidentified object 1046. Planner 1064 may also generate a subset of candidate trajectories 1040, but in this example, the planner is unable to proceed given present confidence levels. If planner 1064 fails to determine an alternative path, a teleoperation request may be transmitted. In this case, a teleoperator may select one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030 that is consistent with teleoperator-based path 1042." Levinson further teaches ([0073]): "Planner 464 is configured to generate a number of candidate trajectories for accomplishing a goal to reaching a destination via a number of paths or routes that are available." Levinson is modified such that the candidate trajectories correspond to the alternate route(s) avoiding a traffic-impacting construction zone of Creusot (see at least [0048], [0058], and FIG. 4 of Creusot).
wherein the waypoint is one selected from a group including… an endpoint for use by the autonomy system to generate a new path that routes past the work zone.
Levinson teaches ([0085]): " In a second example, consider that planner 1064 has generated a number of trajectories that are coextensive with a planner-generated path 1044 regardless of a detected unidentified object 1046. Planner 1064 may also generate a subset of candidate trajectories 1040, but in this example, the planner is unable to proceed given present confidence levels. If planner 1064 fails to determine an alternative path, a teleoperation request may be transmitted. In this case, a teleoperator may select one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030 that is consistent with teleoperator-based path 1042." Levinson further teaches ([0073]): "Planner 464 is configured to generate a number of candidate trajectories for accomplishing a goal to reaching a destination via a number of paths or routes that are available." Levinson is modified such that the candidate trajectories correspond to the alternate route(s) avoiding a traffic-impacting construction zone of Creusot (see at least [0048], [0058], and FIG. 4 of Creusot).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot to incorporate the teachings of Levinson to provide, when it is determined that the autonomy system is unable to identify the second path, requesting assistance from a teleoperations monitor arrangement, wherein the vehicle is configured to obtain, from the teleoperations monitor arrangement, one selected from a group including a waypoint and a first indication of a teleoperations operation arrangement assigned to remotely operate the vehicle past the work zone, wherein the waypoint is one selected from a group including… an endpoint for use by the autonomy system to generate a new path that routes past the work zone. Creusot and Levinson are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Levinson, as incorporating the teleoperation request of Levinson advantageously allows for a teleoperator to select a candidate trajectory to facilitate travel in the case where route planner is incapable of determining an alternative path due to insufficient confidence, as recognized by Levinson (see at least [0085]).
However, neither Creusot nor Levinson outright teach that the waypoint is one selected from a group including a start point and an endpoint for use by the autonomy system to generate a new path that routes past the work zone. Filley teaches targeted roadway alerts, comprising:
wherein the waypoint is one selected from a group including a start point and an endpoint for use by the autonomy system to generate a new path that routes past the work zone.
Filley teaches ([0067]): "The device 122 may also request a route from a current location to a destination from a navigation service or server. A user may use the input device 203 to enter a destination. The user may also enter a starting location other than the current location. The route may be displayed on the output interface 211." Filley further teaches ([0047]): " For example, a navigation device may calculate a route from a starting point to a destination involving several road segments. If prior to or during travel along the route, a navigation device 122 receives an alert message indicating that an accident, construction, road closure, or other event has occurred, the navigation device 122 may generate an alternative route taking into consideration the roadway description and the impact area." Filley is modified such that the alternative route corresponds to the path routing past the work zone of Creusot and Levinson.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot and Levinson to incorporate the teachings of Filley to provide that the waypoint is one selected from a group including a start point and an endpoint for use by the autonomy system to generate a new path that routes past the work zone. Creusot, Levinson, and Filley are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Further, Levinson already provide selecting the waypoint as an endpoint for use by the autonomy system to generate a new path that routes past the work zone (see at least [0073] and [0085]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the waypoint selection of Filley, as doing so advantageously allows a user of the vehicle to select at least one waypoint from a group including a start point and an endpoint (i.e., a starting location and a destination) for use in generating an alternative route taking into consideration construction impacting road segments, as recognized by Filley (see at least [0047]).
Regarding claim 2, Creusot, Levinson, and Filley teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, Creusot does not outright teach that when the vehicle obtains the waypoint, the autonomy system identifies a third path as the new path to the second point that includes the waypoint and routes past the work zone, and the method further includes: autonomously operating the vehicle along the third path. Levinson further teaches:
when the vehicle obtains the waypoint, the autonomy system identifies a third path as the new path to the second point that includes the waypoint and routes past the work zone,
Levinson teaches ([0085]): " In a second example, consider that planner 1064 has generated a number of trajectories that are coextensive with a planner-generated path 1044 regardless of a detected unidentified object 1046. Planner 1064 may also generate a subset of candidate trajectories 1040, but in this example, the planner is unable to proceed given present confidence levels. If planner 1064 fails to determine an alternative path, a teleoperation request may be transmitted. In this case, a teleoperator may select one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030 that is consistent with teleoperator-based path 1042." Levinson further teaches ([0073]): "Planner 464 is configured to generate a number of candidate trajectories for accomplishing a goal to reaching a destination via a number of paths or routes that are available." Here, a third path is identified from among the candidate trajectories 1040. In this case, the waypoint and the destination are the same. Levinson is modified such that the candidate trajectories correspond to candidate trajectories for avoiding the travel-impacting construction zone of Creusot.
and the method further includes: autonomously operating the vehicle along the third path.
Levinson teaches ([0085]): " In a second example, consider that planner 1064 has generated a number of trajectories that are coextensive with a planner-generated path 1044 regardless of a detected unidentified object 1046. Planner 1064 may also generate a subset of candidate trajectories 1040, but in this example, the planner is unable to proceed given present confidence levels. If planner 1064 fails to determine an alternative path, a teleoperation request may be transmitted. In this case, a teleoperator may select one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030 that is consistent with teleoperator-based path 1042."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot, Levinson, and Filley to further incorporate the teachings of Levinson to provide that when the vehicle obtains the waypoint, the autonomy system identifies a third path as the new path to the second point that includes the waypoint and routes past the work zone, and the method further includes: autonomously operating the vehicle along the third path. Creusot, Levinson, and Filley are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Levinson, as incorporating the third path identification of Levinson advantageously allows for a teleoperator to select a candidate trajectory to facilitate travel in the case where the autonomy system is incapable of determining an alternative path due to insufficient confidence, as recognized by Levinson (see at least [0085]).
Regarding claim 9, Creusot teaches logic encoded in one or more tangible non-transitory, computer-readable media for execution (see at least [0028]) and when executed operable to:
operate a vehicle autonomously along a first path from a first point to a second point,
Creusot teaches ([0046]): "Referring now to FIG. 4, a vehicle 10 is illustrated as traveling along a roadway 211 (i.e., to the right in the figure). Also illustrated are roadways 212 and 213 as well as three route segments (defined by a navigation system and stored, for example, in database 53) 221, 222, and 223, which correspond respectively to roadways 211, 212, and 213. In this example, it is assumed that route information associated with a destination (not illustrated) includes route segments 221 and 223..." Creusot further teaches ([0021]): "In various embodiments, the vehicle 10 is an autonomous vehicle and the road construction detection system 100 is incorporated into the autonomous vehicle 10 (hereinafter referred to as the autonomous vehicle 10). The autonomous vehicle 10 is, for example, a vehicle that is automatically controlled to carry passengers from one location to another." Creusot even further teaches [0022]): "In an exemplary embodiment, the autonomous vehicle 10 corresponds to a level four or level five automation system under the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) “J3016” standard taxonomy of automated driving levels. Using this terminology, a level four system indicates “high automation,” referring to a driving mode in which the automated driving system performs all aspects of the dynamic driving task, even if a human driver does not respond appropriately to a request to intervene. A level five system, on the other hand, indicates “full automation,” referring to a driving mode in which the automated driving system performs all aspects of the dynamic driving task under all roadway and environmental conditions that can be managed by a human driver." Creusot still further teaches ([0039]): "In accordance with various embodiments, controller 34 implements an autonomous driving system (ADS) 70... That is, suitable software and/or hardware components of controller 34..."
the logic operable to operate the vehicle autonomously further operable to implement a perception system;
Creusot teaches ([0021]): "In various embodiments, the vehicle 10 is an autonomous vehicle and the road construction detection system 100 is incorporated into the autonomous vehicle 10 (hereinafter referred to as the autonomous vehicle 10). The autonomous vehicle 10 is, for example, a vehicle that is automatically controlled to carry passengers from one location to another." Creusot further teaches ([0047]): "However, as illustrated in FIG. 4, a road construction zone 200 is present along the intended route. In accordance with various embodiments, and as described in further detail below, road construction sensing system 100 (e.g., construction-related object recognition module 320) determines the presence of construction-related objects 270 (outputs 303 in FIG. 6) in the environment. Next, a determination is made (e.g., via construction zone determination module 330) as to whether construction zone 200 is of the type that might impact travel of vehicle 10 along its intended route (based, for example, on the number and types of construction related objects 270 within construction zone 200). The result of this determination is shown as output 304 in FIG. 6."
identify, using the perception system, a work zone;
Creusot teaches ([0047]): "However, as illustrated in FIG. 4, a road construction zone 200 is present along the intended route. In accordance with various embodiments, and as described in further detail below, road construction sensing system 100 (e.g., construction-related object recognition module 320) determines the presence of construction-related objects 270 (outputs 303 in FIG. 6) in the environment. Next, a determination is made (e.g., via construction zone determination module 330) as to whether construction zone 200 is of the type that might impact travel of vehicle 10 along its intended route (based, for example, on the number and types of construction related objects 270 within construction zone 200). The result of this determination is shown as output 304 in FIG. 6."
determine whether the vehicle is able to continue operating along the first path after identifying the work zone;
Creusot teaches ([0047]): "However, as illustrated in FIG. 4, a road construction zone 200 is present along the intended route. In accordance with various embodiments, and as described in further detail below, road construction sensing system 100 (e.g., construction-related object recognition module 320) determines the presence of construction-related objects 270 (outputs 303 in FIG. 6) in the environment. Next, a determination is made (e.g., via construction zone determination module 330) as to whether construction zone 200 is of the type that might impact travel of vehicle 10 along its intended route (based, for example, on the number and types of construction related objects 270 within construction zone 200). The result of this determination is shown as output 304 in FIG. 6." Creusot further teaches ([0056]): "In one embodiment, construction zone determination module 330 receives outputs 303 associated with construction-related artifacts and objects by the various sensors and localizes them in 3D space by combining distance estimations and ray projection using the extrinsic parameters of the calibrated sensors. The nature and position of the construction-related objects 270 relative to the roadway lanes are used to determine various configurations of temporary traffic occlusion, including, without limitation: None (e.g., the objects are not on the road, but are located on a sidewalk or are associated with building construction), Partial (a portion, but not all, of a lane is occluded, allowing the car to nudge around the obstacle by using available free-space, regardless of mapped lane boundaries), Lane blocked (e.g., a lane is fully blocked and cannot be used by the vehicle, and thus the vehicle will attempt to change lanes), and Road blocked (e.g., no other lanes are available on the road, leading to a black-listing of the segment of road for use in subsequent route guidance)..."
determine whether a second path to the second point that routes past the work zone is feasible when it is determined that the vehicle is not able to continue operating along the first path;
Creusot teaches ([0057]): "Next, at 706, information regarding the nature of construction zone 200 is transmitted to an external server (e.g., route database server 53 in FIG. 2) and then propagated to other modules within the vehicle to generate peripheral behaviors such as reducing speed, preventive calls to a remote expert, warning the passenger, and/or the like. The construction-zone information might include, for example, the geographical location of zone 200 (e.g., latitude, longitude, etc.), the severity of the zone (e.g., ‘lane blocked’, ‘road blocked’, ‘partial’, etc.), and the route segments that are affected (e.g., ‘route segment 223’)..." Creusot further teaches ([0058]): "Finally, at 707, vehicle 10 (and/or another vehicle) receives alternate route information associated with the destination, avoiding route segments affected by the travel-impacting construction zone 200. In FIG. 4, for example, this results in a new route that does not include route segment 223."
operate the vehicle autonomously along the second path when it is determined that the autonomy system is able to identify the second path;
Creusot teaches [0048]): "If it is determined that construction zone 200 is likely to impact travel of vehicle 10, information related to construction zone 200 is related to an external server (e.g., database 53), which then provides to vehicle 10 information regarding an alternate route. In the illustrated embodiment, for example, the alternate route might include replacing route segment 223 with route segment 222 in order to reach the desired destination (not illustrated), thereby avoiding the travel-impacting construction zone 200." Creusot further teaches ([0058]): "Finally, at 707, vehicle 10 (and/or another vehicle) receives alternate route information associated with the destination, avoiding route segments affected by the travel-impacting construction zone 200. In FIG. 4, for example, this results in a new route that does not include route segment 223."
However, Creusot does not outright teach, when it is determined that the autonomy system is unable to identify the second path, request assistance from a teleoperations monitor arrangement, wherein the vehicle is configured to obtain, from the teleoperations monitor arrangement, one selected from a group including a waypoint and a first indication of a teleoperations operation arrangement assigned to remotely operate the vehicle past the work zone, wherein the waypoint is one selected from a group including... an endpoint for use by the autonomy system to generate a new path that routes past the work zone. Levinson teaches adaptive autonomous vehicle planner logic, comprising:
and when it is determined that the autonomy system is unable to identify the second path, request assistance from a teleoperations monitor arrangement,
Levinson teaches ([0085]): " In a second example, consider that planner 1064 has generated a number of trajectories that are coextensive with a planner-generated path 1044 regardless of a detected unidentified object 1046. Planner 1064 may also generate a subset of candidate trajectories 1040, but in this example, the planner is unable to proceed given present confidence levels. If planner 1064 fails to determine an alternative path, a teleoperation request may be transmitted. In this case, a teleoperator may select one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030 that is consistent with teleoperator-based path 1042."
wherein the vehicle is configured to obtain, from the teleoperations monitor arrangement, one selected from a group including a waypoint and a first indication of a teleoperations operation arrangement assigned to remotely operate the vehicle past the work zone,
Levinson teaches ([0085]): " In a second example, consider that planner 1064 has generated a number of trajectories that are coextensive with a planner-generated path 1044 regardless of a detected unidentified object 1046. Planner 1064 may also generate a subset of candidate trajectories 1040, but in this example, the planner is unable to proceed given present confidence levels. If planner 1064 fails to determine an alternative path, a teleoperation request may be transmitted. In this case, a teleoperator may select one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030 that is consistent with teleoperator-based path 1042." Levinson further teaches ([0073]): "Planner 464 is configured to generate a number of candidate trajectories for accomplishing a goal to reaching a destination via a number of paths or routes that are available." Levinson is modified such that the candidate trajectories correspond to the alternate route(s) avoiding a traffic-impacting construction zone of Creusot (see at least [0048], [0058], and FIG. 4 of Creusot).
wherein the waypoint is one selected from a group including... an endpoint for use by the autonomy system to generate a new path that routes past the work zone.
Levinson teaches ([0085]): " In a second example, consider that planner 1064 has generated a number of trajectories that are coextensive with a planner-generated path 1044 regardless of a detected unidentified object 1046. Planner 1064 may also generate a subset of candidate trajectories 1040, but in this example, the planner is unable to proceed given present confidence levels. If planner 1064 fails to determine an alternative path, a teleoperation request may be transmitted. In this case, a teleoperator may select one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030 that is consistent with teleoperator-based path 1042." Levinson further teaches ([0073]): "Planner 464 is configured to generate a number of candidate trajectories for accomplishing a goal to reaching a destination via a number of paths or routes that are available." Levinson is modified such that the candidate trajectories correspond to the alternate route(s) avoiding a traffic-impacting construction zone of Creusot (see at least [0048], [0058], and FIG. 4 of Creusot).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot to incorporate the teachings of Levinson to provide, when it is determined that the autonomy system is unable to identify the second path, request assistance from a teleoperations monitor arrangement, wherein the vehicle is configured to obtain, from the teleoperations monitor arrangement, one selected from a group including a waypoint and a first indication of a teleoperations operation arrangement assigned to remotely operate the vehicle past the work zone, wherein the waypoint is one selected from a group including... an endpoint for use by the autonomy system to generate a new path that routes past the work zone. Creusot and Levinson are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Levinson, as incorporating the teleoperation request of Levinson advantageously allows for a teleoperator to select a candidate trajectory to facilitate travel in the case where route planner is incapable of determining an alternative path due to insufficient confidence, as recognized by Levinson (see at least [0085]).
However, neither Creusot nor Levinson outright teach that the waypoint is one selected from a group including a start point and an endpoint for use by the autonomy system to generate a new path that routes past the work zone. Filley teaches targeted roadway alerts, comprising:
wherein the waypoint is one selected from a group including a start point and an endpoint for use by the autonomy system to generate a new path that routes past the work zone.
Filley teaches ([0067]): "The device 122 may also request a route from a current location to a destination from a navigation service or server. A user may use the input device 203 to enter a destination. The user may also enter a starting location other than the current location. The route may be displayed on the output interface 211." Filley further teaches ([0047]): " For example, a navigation device may calculate a route from a starting point to a destination involving several road segments. If prior to or during travel along the route, a navigation device 122 receives an alert message indicating that an accident, construction, road closure, or other event has occurred, the navigation device 122 may generate an alternative route taking into consideration the roadway description and the impact area." Filley is modified such that the alternative route corresponds to the path routing past the work zone of Creusot and Levinson.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot and Levinson to incorporate the teachings of Filley to provide that the waypoint is one selected from a group including a start point and an endpoint for use by the autonomy system to generate a new path that routes past the work zone. Creusot, Levinson, and Filley are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Further, Levinson already provide selecting the waypoint as an endpoint for use by the autonomy system to generate a new path that routes past the work zone (see at least [0073] and [0085]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the waypoint selection of Filley, as doing so advantageously allows a user of the vehicle to select at least one waypoint from a group including a start point and an endpoint (i.e., a starting location and a destination) for use in generating an alternative route taking into consideration construction impacting road segments, as recognized by Filley (see at least [0047]).
Regarding claim 10, Creusot, Levinson, and Filley teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 9. However, Creusot does not outright teach that when the vehicle obtains the waypoint, the autonomy system identifies a third path as the new path to the second point that includes the waypoint and routes past the work zone, and the logic is further operable to: autonomously operating the vehicle along the third path. Levinson further teaches:
when the vehicle obtains the waypoint, the autonomy system identifies a third path as the new path to the second point that includes the waypoint and routes past the work zone,
Levinson teaches ([0085]): " In a second example, consider that planner 1064 has generated a number of trajectories that are coextensive with a planner-generated path 1044 regardless of a detected unidentified object 1046. Planner 1064 may also generate a subset of candidate trajectories 1040, but in this example, the planner is unable to proceed given present confidence levels. If planner 1064 fails to determine an alternative path, a teleoperation request may be transmitted. In this case, a teleoperator may select one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030 that is consistent with teleoperator-based path 1042." ([0073]): "Planner 464 is configured to generate a number of candidate trajectories for accomplishing a goal to reaching a destination via a number of paths or routes that are available." Here, a third path is identified from among the candidate trajectories 1040. In this case, the waypoint and the destination are the same. Levinson is modified such that the candidate trajectories correspond to candidate trajectories for avoiding the travel-impacting construction zone of Creusot.
and the logic is further operable to: autonomously operate the vehicle along the third path.
Levinson teaches ([0085]): " In a second example, consider that planner 1064 has generated a number of trajectories that are coextensive with a planner-generated path 1044 regardless of a detected unidentified object 1046. Planner 1064 may also generate a subset of candidate trajectories 1040, but in this example, the planner is unable to proceed given present confidence levels. If planner 1064 fails to determine an alternative path, a teleoperation request may be transmitted. In this case, a teleoperator may select one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030 that is consistent with teleoperator-based path 1042."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot, Levinson, and Filley to further incorporate the teachings of Levinson to provide that when the vehicle obtains the waypoint, the autonomy system identifies a third path as the new path to the second point that includes the waypoint and routes past the work zone, and the logic is further operable to: autonomously operating the vehicle along the third path. Creusot and Levinson are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Levinson, as incorporating the third path identification of Levinson advantageously allows for a teleoperator to select a candidate trajectory to facilitate travel in the case where the autonomy system is incapable of determining an alternative path due to insufficient confidence, as recognized by Levinson (see at least [0085]).
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creusot, Levinson, and Filley in view of Caldwell et al. (US 2020/0409352 A1), hereinafter Caldwell.
Regarding claim 3, Creusot, Levinson, and Filley teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, Creusot does not outright teach that when the vehicle obtains the first indication of a teleoperations operation arrangement assigned to remotely operate the vehicle past the work zone, the method includes: operating the vehicle under control by the teleoperations operation arrangement on a third path past the work zone. Levinson further teaches:
when the vehicle obtains the first indication of a teleoperations operation arrangement assigned to remotely operate the vehicle past the work zone, the method includes: operating the vehicle under control by the teleoperations operation arrangement on a third path past the work zone;
Levinson teaches ([0085]): " In a second example, consider that planner 1064 has generated a number of trajectories that are coextensive with a planner-generated path 1044 regardless of a detected unidentified object 1046. Planner 1064 may also generate a subset of candidate trajectories 1040, but in this example, the planner is unable to proceed given present confidence levels. If planner 1064 fails to determine an alternative path, a teleoperation request may be transmitted. In this case, a teleoperator may select one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030 that is consistent with teleoperator-based path 1042." Levinson further teaches ([0073]): "Planner 464 is configured to generate a number of candidate trajectories for accomplishing a goal to reaching a destination via a number of paths or routes that are available." Here, a third path is identified from among the candidate trajectories 1040. Levinson is modified such that the candidate trajectories correspond to candidate trajectories for avoiding the travel-impacting construction zone of Creusot.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot, Levinson, and Filley to further incorporate the teachings of Levinson to provide that when the vehicle obtains the first indication of a teleoperations operation arrangement assigned to remotely operate the vehicle past the work zone, the method includes: operating the vehicle under control by the teleoperations operation arrangement on a third path past the work zone. Creusot, Levinson, and Filley are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Levinson, as incorporating the teleoperation arrangement of Levinson advantageously allows for a teleoperator to select a candidate trajectory to facilitate travel in the case where route planner is incapable of determining an alternative path due to insufficient confidence, as recognized by Levinson (see at least [0085]).
However, Creusot does not outright teach determining when a second indication is obtained, the second indication being arranged to indicate that the vehicle is to resume operating autonomously, and when it is determined that the second indication is obtained, identifying a third path to the second point using the autonomy system, and autonomously operating the vehicle on the third path. Caldwell teaches vehicle control and guidance, comprising:
determining when a second indication is obtained, the second indication being arranged to indicate that the vehicle is to resume operating autonomously;
Caldwell teaches ([0027]): "In various examples, the service computing device may determine that a scenario is complete (e.g., vehicle passes obstacle, can resume normal operations) and may release the vehicle from the remote guidance." Caldwell further teaches ([0028]): "In various examples, responsive to a determination that the scenario is complete, the service computing device may send a release signal to the vehicle. In such examples, responsive to the release signal, the vehicle computing system may be configured to resume navigation of the vehicle (e.g., autonomous control). In various examples, the service computing device may determine that the scenario blocked an initial route of the vehicle. In such examples, the service computing device may be configured to generate an updated route for the vehicle to arrive at a pre-determined destination... In some examples, the service computing device may send the updated route substantially concurrently with the release signal (e.g., within 1 second, 2 seconds, etc.). Responsive to receipt of the updated route, the vehicle computing system may control the vehicle along the updated route to the pre-determined destination."
when it is determined that the second indication is obtained, identifying a third path to the second point using the autonomy system; and autonomously operating the vehicle on the third path.
Caldwell teaches ([0027]): "In various examples, the service computing device may determine that a scenario is complete (e.g., vehicle passes obstacle, can resume normal operations) and may release the vehicle from the remote guidance." Caldwell further teaches ([0028]): "In various examples, responsive to a determination that the scenario is complete, the service computing device may send a release signal to the vehicle. In such examples, responsive to the release signal, the vehicle computing system may be configured to resume navigation of the vehicle (e.g., autonomous control). In various examples, the service computing device may determine that the scenario blocked an initial route of the vehicle. In such examples, the service computing device may be configured to generate an updated route for the vehicle to arrive at a pre-determined destination... In some examples, the service computing device may send the updated route substantially concurrently with the release signal (e.g., within 1 second, 2 seconds, etc.). Responsive to receipt of the updated route, the vehicle computing system may control the vehicle along the updated route to the pre-determined destination."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot, Levinson, and Filley to incorporate the teachings of Caldwell to provide determining when a second indication is obtained, the second indication being arranged to indicate that the vehicle is to resume operating autonomously, and when it is determined that the second indication is obtained, identifying a third path to the second point using the autonomy system, and autonomously operating the vehicle on the third path. Creusot, Levinson, Filley, and Caldwell are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Caldwell, as doing so beneficially allows for resumption of navigation of the vehicle in the case where a scenario is complete (e.g., the vehicle passes an obstacle and can resume normal operations), as recognized by Caldwell (See at least [0027]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 11, Creusot, Levinson, and Filley teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, Creusot does not outright teach that when the vehicle obtains the first indication of a teleoperations operation arrangement assigned to remotely operate the vehicle past the work zone, the logic is further operable to: operate the vehicle under control by the teleoperations operation arrangement on a third path past the work zone. Levinson further teaches:
when the vehicle obtains the first indication of a teleoperations operation arrangement assigned to remotely operate the vehicle past the work zone, the logic is further operable to: operate the vehicle under control by the teleoperations operation arrangement on a third path past the work zone;
Levinson teaches ([0085]): " In a second example, consider that planner 1064 has generated a number of trajectories that are coextensive with a planner-generated path 1044 regardless of a detected unidentified object 1046. Planner 1064 may also generate a subset of candidate trajectories 1040, but in this example, the planner is unable to proceed given present confidence levels. If planner 1064 fails to determine an alternative path, a teleoperation request may be transmitted. In this case, a teleoperator may select one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030 that is consistent with teleoperator-based path 1042." Levinson further teaches ([0073]): "Planner 464 is configured to generate a number of candidate trajectories for accomplishing a goal to reaching a destination via a number of paths or routes that are available." Here, a third path is identified from among the candidate trajectories 1040. Levinson is modified such that the candidate trajectories correspond to candidate trajectories for avoiding the travel-impacting construction zone of Creusot.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot, Levinson, and Filley to further incorporate the teachings of Levinson to provide that when the vehicle obtains the first indication of a teleoperations operation arrangement assigned to remotely operate the vehicle past the work zone, the logic is further operable to: operate the vehicle under control by the teleoperations operation arrangement on a third path past the work zone. Creusot, Levinson, and Filley are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Levinson, as incorporating the teleoperation arrangement of Levinson advantageously allows for a teleoperator to select a candidate trajectory to facilitate travel in the case where route planner is incapable of determining an alternative path due to insufficient confidence, as recognized by Levinson (see at least [0085]).
However, Creusot does not outright teach determining when a second indication is obtained, the second indication being arranged to indicate that the vehicle is to resume operating autonomously, and when it is determined that the second indication is obtained, identifying a third path to the second point using the autonomy system, and autonomously operating the vehicle on the third path. Caldwell teaches vehicle control and guidance, comprising:
determine when a second indication is obtained, the second indication being arranged to indicate that the vehicle is to resume operating autonomously;
Caldwell teaches ([0027]): "In various examples, the service computing device may determine that a scenario is complete (e.g., vehicle passes obstacle, can resume normal operations) and may release the vehicle from the remote guidance." Caldwell further teaches ([0028]): "In various examples, responsive to a determination that the scenario is complete, the service computing device may send a release signal to the vehicle. In such examples, responsive to the release signal, the vehicle computing system may be configured to resume navigation of the vehicle (e.g., autonomous control). In various examples, the service computing device may determine that the scenario blocked an initial route of the vehicle. In such examples, the service computing device may be configured to generate an updated route for the vehicle to arrive at a pre-determined destination... In some examples, the service computing device may send the updated route substantially concurrently with the release signal (e.g., within 1 second, 2 seconds, etc.). Responsive to receipt of the updated route, the vehicle computing system may control the vehicle along the updated route to the pre-determined destination."
identify a third path to the second point using the autonomy system when it is determined that the second indication is obtained; and autonomously operate the vehicle on the third path.
Caldwell teaches ([0027]): "In various examples, the service computing device may determine that a scenario is complete (e.g., vehicle passes obstacle, can resume normal operations) and may release the vehicle from the remote guidance." Caldwell further teaches ([0028]): "In various examples, responsive to a determination that the scenario is complete, the service computing device may send a release signal to the vehicle. In such examples, responsive to the release signal, the vehicle computing system may be configured to resume navigation of the vehicle (e.g., autonomous control). In various examples, the service computing device may determine that the scenario blocked an initial route of the vehicle. In such examples, the service computing device may be configured to generate an updated route for the vehicle to arrive at a pre-determined destination... In some examples, the service computing device may send the updated route substantially concurrently with the release signal (e.g., within 1 second, 2 seconds, etc.). Responsive to receipt of the updated route, the vehicle computing system may control the vehicle along the updated route to the pre-determined destination."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot, Levinson, and Filley to incorporate the teachings of Caldwell to provide determining when a second indication is obtained, the second indication being arranged to indicate that the vehicle is to resume operating autonomously, and when it is determined that the second indication is obtained, identifying a third path to the second point using the autonomy system, and autonomously operating the vehicle on the third path. Creusot, Levinson, Filley, and Caldwell are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Caldwell, as doing so beneficially allows for resumption of navigation of the vehicle in the case where a scenario is complete (e.g., the vehicle passes an obstacle and can resume normal operations), as recognized by Caldwell (See at least [0027]-[0028]).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creusot, Levinson, and Filley in view of Nemec et al. (US 8,688,306 B1), hereinafter Nemec.
Regarding claim 4, Creusot, Levinson, and Filley teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Creusot further teaches:
determining, using the autonomy system, whether the autonomy system is able to identify a second path to the second point that routes past the work zone includes: generating a potential second path that routes past the work zone;
Creusot teaches [0048]): "If it is determined that construction zone 200 is likely to impact travel of vehicle 10, information related to construction zone 200 is related to an external server (e.g., database 53), which then provides to vehicle 10 information regarding an alternate route. In the illustrated embodiment, for example, the alternate route might include replacing route segment 223 with route segment 222 in order to reach the desired destination (not illustrated), thereby avoiding the travel-impacting construction zone 200." Creusot further teaches ([0058]): "Finally, at 707, vehicle 10 (and/or another vehicle) receives alternate route information associated with the destination, avoiding route segments affected by the travel-impacting construction zone 200. In FIG. 4, for example, this results in a new route that does not include route segment 223.”
However, Creusot does not outright teach determining an amount of deviation associated with the potential second path and the first path, determining whether the amount of deviation is below a threshold, and identifying the potential second path as the second path when it is determined that the amount of deviation is below the threshold. Nemec teaches systems and methods for vehicles with limited destination ability, comprising:
determining an amount of deviation associated with the potential second path and the first path;
Nemec teaches (Col. 13 lines 59-67): "The alternative routes may then be compared to the predetermined route to calculate factors such as distance from the predefined route, expected duration or travel time, and proximity to any restricted areas as described above. These factors may be weighted and summed into a deviation value for each alternative route. The deviation values may then be compared to the maximum deviation threshold. Any alternative routes associated with a deviation value greater than the maximum deviation threshold may be excluded."
determining whether the amount of deviation is below a threshold;
Nemec teaches (Col. 13 lines 59-67): "The alternative routes may then be compared to the predetermined route to calculate factors such as distance from the predefined route, expected duration or travel time, and proximity to any restricted areas as described above. These factors may be weighted and summed into a deviation value for each alternative route. The deviation values may then be compared to the maximum deviation threshold. Any alternative routes associated with a deviation value greater than the maximum deviation threshold may be excluded."
and identifying the potential second path as the second path when it is determined that the amount of deviation is below the threshold.
Nemec teaches (Col. 14 lines 41-55): " One or more alternative routes with deviation values at or below the maximum deviation threshold may be presented to the user on a display. The user may then select between the predetermined route and any of the presented alternative values..."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot, Levinson, and Filley to incorporate the teachings of Nemec to provide determining an amount of deviation associated with the potential second path and the first path, determining whether the amount of deviation is below a threshold, and identifying the potential second path as the second path when it is determined that the amount of deviation is below the threshold. Creusot, Levinson, Filley, and Nemec are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Nemec, as incorporating the deviation threshold of Nemec beneficially excludes alternative routes which have a deviation value greater than a maximum deviation threshold and allowing the user to select one or more alternative routes with deviation values below the maximum deviation threshold, as recognized by Nemec (see at least Col. 13 lines 59-67 and Col. 14 lines 41-55).
Regarding claim 5, Creusot, Levinson, Filley, and Nemec teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 4. However, Creusot does not outright teach that when it is determined that the amount of deviation is not below the threshold, the autonomy system is not able to identify the second path to the second point that routes past the work zone. Nemec further teaches:
when it is determined that the amount of deviation is not below the threshold, the autonomy system is not able to identify the second path to the second point that routes past the work zone.
Nemec teaches (Col. 13 lines 59-67): "The alternative routes may then be compared to the predetermined route to calculate factors such as distance from the predefined route, expected duration or travel time, and proximity to any restricted areas as described above. These factors may be weighted and summed into a deviation value for each alternative route. The deviation values may then be compared to the maximum deviation threshold. Any alternative routes associated with a deviation value greater than the maximum deviation threshold may be excluded."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot, Levinson, Filley, and Nemec to further incorporate the teachings of Nemec to provide that when it is determined that the amount of deviation is not below the threshold, the autonomy system is not able to identify the second path to the second point that routes past the work zone. Creusot, Levinson, Filley, and Nemec are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Nemec, as incorporating the deviation threshold of Nemec beneficially excludes alternative routes which have a deviation value greater than a maximum deviation threshold and allowing the user to select one or more alternative routes with deviation values below the maximum deviation threshold, as recognized by Nemec (see at least Col. 13 lines 59-67 and Col. 14 lines 41-55).
Regarding claim 12, Creusot, Levinson, and Filley teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 9. Creusot further teaches:
the logic operable to determine whether the autonomy system is able to identify the second path to the second point that past the work zone is operable to: generate a potential second path that routes past the work zone;
Creusot teaches ([0048]): "If it is determined that construction zone 200 is likely to impact travel of vehicle 10, information related to construction zone 200 is related to an external server (e.g., database 53), which then provides to vehicle 10 information regarding an alternate route. In the illustrated embodiment, for example, the alternate route might include replacing route segment 223 with route segment 222 in order to reach the desired destination (not illustrated), thereby avoiding the travel-impacting construction zone 200." Creusot further teaches ([0058]): "Finally, at 707, vehicle 10 (and/or another vehicle) receives alternate route information associated with the destination, avoiding route segments affected by the travel-impacting construction zone 200. In FIG. 4, for example, this results in a new route that does not include route segment 223."
However, Creusot does not outright teach determining an amount of deviation associated with the potential second path and the first path, determining whether the amount of deviation is below a threshold, and identifying the potential second path as the second path when it is determined that the amount of deviation is below the threshold. Nemec teaches systems and methods for vehicles with limited destination ability, comprising:
determines an amount of deviation associated with the potential second path and the first path;
Nemec teaches (Col. 13 lines 59-67): "The alternative routes may then be compared to the predetermined route to calculate factors such as distance from the predefined route, expected duration or travel time, and proximity to any restricted areas as described above. These factors may be weighted and summed into a deviation value for each alternative route. The deviation values may then be compared to the maximum deviation threshold. Any alternative routes associated with a deviation value greater than the maximum deviation threshold may be excluded."
determines whether the amount of deviation is below a threshold;
Nemec teaches (Col. 13 lines 59-67): "The alternative routes may then be compared to the predetermined route to calculate factors such as distance from the predefined route, expected duration or travel time, and proximity to any restricted areas as described above. These factors may be weighted and summed into a deviation value for each alternative route. The deviation values may then be compared to the maximum deviation threshold. Any alternative routes associated with a deviation value greater than the maximum deviation threshold may be excluded."
and identifies the potential second path as the second path when it is determined that the amount of deviation is below the threshold.
Nemec teaches (Col. 14 lines 41-55): " One or more alternative routes with deviation values at or below the maximum deviation threshold may be presented to the user on a display. The user may then select between the predetermined route and any of the presented alternative values..."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot, Levinson, and Filley to incorporate the teachings of Nemec to provide determining an amount of deviation associated with the potential second path and the first path, determining whether the amount of deviation is below a threshold, and identifying the potential second path as the second path when it is determined that the amount of deviation is below the threshold. Creusot, Levinson, Filley, and Nemec are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Nemec, as incorporating the deviation threshold of Nemec beneficially excludes alternative routes which have a deviation value greater than a maximum deviation threshold and allowing the user to select one or more alternative routes with deviation values below the maximum deviation threshold, as recognized by Nemec (see at least Col. 13 lines 59-67 and Col. 14 lines 41-55).
Regarding claim 13, Creusot, Levinson, Filley, and Nemec teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 12. However, Creusot does not outright teach that when it is determined that the amount of deviation is not below the threshold, the autonomy system is not able to identify the second path to the second point that routes past the work zone. Nemec further teaches:
when it is determined that the amount of deviation is not below the threshold, the autonomy system is not able to identify the second path to the second point that routes past the work zone.
Nemec teaches (Col. 13 lines 59-67): "The alternative routes may then be compared to the predetermined route to calculate factors such as distance from the predefined route, expected duration or travel time, and proximity to any restricted areas as described above. These factors may be weighted and summed into a deviation value for each alternative route. The deviation values may then be compared to the maximum deviation threshold. Any alternative routes associated with a deviation value greater than the maximum deviation threshold may be excluded."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot, Levinson, Filley, and Nemec to further incorporate the teachings of Nemec to provide that when it is determined that the amount of deviation is not below the threshold, the autonomy system is not able to identify the second path to the second point that routes past the work zone. Creusot, Levinson, Filley, and Nemec are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Nemec, as incorporating the deviation threshold of Nemec beneficially excludes alternative routes which have a deviation value greater than a maximum deviation threshold and allowing the user to select one or more alternative routes with deviation values below the maximum deviation threshold, as recognized by Nemec (see at least Col. 13 lines 59-67 and Col. 14 lines 41-55).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creusot, Levinson, and Filley in view of Kobilarov et al. (US 2019/0101919 A1), hereinafter Kobilarov.
Regarding claim 6, Creusot, Levinson, and Filley teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Creusot further teaches:
determining, using the autonomy system, whether the autonomy system is able to identify the second path to the second point that routes past the work zone includes: identifying a potential second path that routes past the work zone;
Creusot teaches [0048]): "If it is determined that construction zone 200 is likely to impact travel of vehicle 10, information related to construction zone 200 is related to an external server (e.g., database 53), which then provides to vehicle 10 information regarding an alternate route. In the illustrated embodiment, for example, the alternate route might include replacing route segment 223 with route segment 222 in order to reach the desired destination (not illustrated), thereby avoiding the travel-impacting construction zone 200." Creusot further teaches ([0058]): "Finally, at 707, vehicle 10 (and/or another vehicle) receives alternate route information associated with the destination, avoiding route segments affected by the travel-impacting construction zone 200. In FIG. 4, for example, this results in a new route that does not include route segment 223."
However, Creusot does not outright teach determining whether the potential second path is consistent with traffic directions associated with a map used by the autonomy system, and identifying the potential second path as the second path when it is determined that the potential second path is consistent with traffic directions. Kobilarov teaches trajectory generation using temporal logic and tree search, comprising:
determining whether the potential second path is consistent with traffic directions associated with a map used by the autonomy system;
Kobilarov teaches ([0017]):"In general, determining a trajectory for an autonomous vehicle can include utilizing a tree search algorithm such as Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to organize and search through possible trajectories, while using temporal logic formulas, such as Linear Temporal Logic (LTL), to verify whether the possible trajectories satisfy rules of the road, for example, and determining various costs and constraints associated with possible trajectories to select a trajectory to optimize performance. In some instances, determining a trajectory of an autonomous vehicle can include determining a current state of the vehicle, which can include determining static symbols and dynamic symbols which represent objects in an environment. For example, and without limitation, static symbols can include stop regions proximate to a stop sign, lane regions defining a lane of a road for the autonomous vehicle to traverse, static objects (e.g., buildings, obstacles, parked vehicles, etc.) or any region of space or state of the world (e.g., such as Washington or California), etc." Kobilarov further teaches ([0018]): "Once static symbols and/or dynamic symbols are determined (e.g., from a map or a perception system), processing can include determining features based on the symbols."
and identifying the potential second path as the second path when it is determined that the potential second path is consistent with traffic directions.
Kobilarov teaches ([0017]):"In general, determining a trajectory for an autonomous vehicle can include utilizing a tree search algorithm such as Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to organize and search through possible trajectories, while using temporal logic formulas, such as Linear Temporal Logic (LTL), to verify whether the possible trajectories satisfy rules of the road, for example, and determining various costs and constraints associated with possible trajectories to select a trajectory to optimize performance." Kobilarov further teaches ([0037]): "In an example where the instruction is a trajectory, the trajectory module 108 can leverage model(s) and/or algorithm(s), constraint(s), and/or cost(s) to optimize the trajectory. For instance, the trajectory module 108 can utilize model(s) and/or algorithm(s) including, but not limited to, differential dynamic programming, interior point optimization, sequential quadratic programming, etc. to refine the trajectory. In at least one example, the constraint(s) can include, but are not limited to, cost(s), comfort, safety, rules of the road, etc.... Based at least in part on processing the trajectory, in view of the real-time processed sensor data, the trajectory module 108 can generate an output trajectory."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot, Levinson, and Filley to incorporate the teachings of Kobilarov to provide determining whether the potential second path is consistent with traffic directions associated with a map used by the autonomy system, and identifying the potential second path as the second path when it is determined that the potential second path is consistent with traffic directions. Creusot, Levinson, Filley, and Kobilarov are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Kobilarov, as incorporating the trajectory cost optimization of Kobilarov beneficially allows for the determination of an optimized output trajectory which satisfies the rules of the road, as recognized by Kobilarov (see at least [0017] and [0037]).
Regarding claim 14, Creusot, Levinson, and Filley teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 9. Creusot further teaches:
the logic operable to determine whether the autonomy system is able to identify the second path to the second point that routes past the work zone is further operable to: identify a potential second path that routes past the work zone;
Creusot teaches [0048]): "If it is determined that construction zone 200 is likely to impact travel of vehicle 10, information related to construction zone 200 is related to an external server (e.g., database 53), which then provides to vehicle 10 information regarding an alternate route. In the illustrated embodiment, for example, the alternate route might include replacing route segment 223 with route segment 222 in order to reach the desired destination (not illustrated), thereby avoiding the travel-impacting construction zone 200." Creusot further teaches ([0058]): "Finally, at 707, vehicle 10 (and/or another vehicle) receives alternate route information associated with the destination, avoiding route segments affected by the travel-impacting construction zone 200. In FIG. 4, for example, this results in a new route that does not include route segment 223."
However, Creusot does not outright teach determining whether the potential second path is consistent with traffic directions associated with a map used by the autonomy system, and identifying the potential second path as the second path when it is determined that the potential second path is consistent with traffic directions. Kobilarov teaches trajectory generation using temporal logic and tree search, comprising:
determine whether the potential second path is consistent with traffic directions associated with a map used by the autonomy system;
Kobilarov teaches ([0017]):"In general, determining a trajectory for an autonomous vehicle can include utilizing a tree search algorithm such as Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to organize and search through possible trajectories, while using temporal logic formulas, such as Linear Temporal Logic (LTL), to verify whether the possible trajectories satisfy rules of the road, for example, and determining various costs and constraints associated with possible trajectories to select a trajectory to optimize performance. In some instances, determining a trajectory of an autonomous vehicle can include determining a current state of the vehicle, which can include determining static symbols and dynamic symbols which represent objects in an environment. For example, and without limitation, static symbols can include stop regions proximate to a stop sign, lane regions defining a lane of a road for the autonomous vehicle to traverse, static objects (e.g., buildings, obstacles, parked vehicles, etc.) or any region of space or state of the world (e.g., such as Washington or California), etc." Kobilarov further teaches ([0018]): "Once static symbols and/or dynamic symbols are determined (e.g., from a map or a perception system), processing can include determining features based on the symbols."
and identify the potential second path as the second path when it is determined that the potential second path is consistent with traffic directions.
Kobilarov teaches ([0017]):"In general, determining a trajectory for an autonomous vehicle can include utilizing a tree search algorithm such as Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to organize and search through possible trajectories, while using temporal logic formulas, such as Linear Temporal Logic (LTL), to verify whether the possible trajectories satisfy rules of the road, for example, and determining various costs and constraints associated with possible trajectories to select a trajectory to optimize performance." Kobilarov further teaches ([0037]): "In an example where the instruction is a trajectory, the trajectory module 108 can leverage model(s) and/or algorithm(s), constraint(s), and/or cost(s) to optimize the trajectory. For instance, the trajectory module 108 can utilize model(s) and/or algorithm(s) including, but not limited to, differential dynamic programming, interior point optimization, sequential quadratic programming, etc. to refine the trajectory. In at least one example, the constraint(s) can include, but are not limited to, cost(s), comfort, safety, rules of the road, etc.... Based at least in part on processing the trajectory, in view of the real-time processed sensor data, the trajectory module 108 can generate an output trajectory."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot, Levinson, and Filley to incorporate the teachings of Kobilarov to provide determining whether the potential second path is consistent with traffic directions associated with a map used by the autonomy system, and identifying the potential second path as the second path when it is determined that the potential second path is consistent with traffic directions. Creusot, Levinson, Filley, and Kobilarov are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Kobilarov, as incorporating the trajectory cost optimization of Kobilarov beneficially allows for the determination of an optimized output trajectory which satisfies the rules of the road, as recognized by Kobilarov (see at least [0017] and [0037]).
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creusot, Levinson, and Filley in view of Salour et al. (US 2019/0187699 A1), hereinafter Salour.
Regarding claim 7, Creusot, Levinson, and Filley teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However Creusot does not outright teach that when it is determined that the vehicle is not able to continue operating along the first path, the method further includes: taking a mitigating action using the vehicle while determining whether the autonomy system is able to identify the second path. Salour teaches a multi-sensor safe path system for autonomous vehicles, comprising:
when it is determined that the vehicle is not able to continue operating along the first path, the method further includes: taking a mitigating action using the vehicle while determining whether the autonomy system is able to identify the second path.
Salour teaches ([0059]): "In accordance with at least some embodiments, the constraint is that the object not be in an obstructing position along the planned path of the AGV 10, in which cases at least some of the vehicle guidance data represents a command to delay or slow down the AGV 10 when the object is in the obstructing position. In these embodiments, the path control server 6 is further configured to: determine a current time interval during which the object has been in the obstructing position; determine whether the current time interval is greater than a specified threshold or not; and if the current time interval exceeds the specified threshold, determine an alternative path for the AGV 10 that avoids the object, wherein at least some of the vehicle guidance data represent routing data for the alternative path."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot, Levinson, and Filley to incorporate the teachings of Salour to provide that when it is determined that the vehicle is not able to continue operating along the first path, the method further includes: taking a mitigating action using the vehicle while determining whether the autonomy system is able to identify the second path. Creusot, Levinson, Filley, and Salour are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Salour, as doing so beneficially allows the vehicle to delay or slow down when an object is detected in an obstructing position while making routing decisions based on how long the object has been in the obstructing position, as recognized by Salour (see at least [0059]).
Regarding claim 15, Creusot, Levinson, and Filley teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 9. However Creusot does not outright teach that when it is determined that the vehicle is not able to continue operating along the first path, the logic is operable to: take a mitigating action using the vehicle while determining whether the autonomy system is able to identify the second path. Salour teaches a multi-sensor safe path system for autonomous vehicles, comprising:
when it is determined that the vehicle is not able to continue operating along the first path, the logic is operable to: take a mitigating action using the vehicle while determining whether the autonomy system is able to identify the second path.
Salour teaches ([0059]): "In accordance with at least some embodiments, the constraint is that the object not be in an obstructing position along the planned path of the AGV 10, in which cases at least some of the vehicle guidance data represents a command to delay or slow down the AGV 10 when the object is in the obstructing position. In these embodiments, the path control server 6 is further configured to: determine a current time interval during which the object has been in the obstructing position; determine whether the current time interval is greater than a specified threshold or not; and if the current time interval exceeds the specified threshold, determine an alternative path for the AGV 10 that avoids the object, wherein at least some of the vehicle guidance data represent routing data for the alternative path."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot, Levinson, and Filley to incorporate the teachings of Salour to provide when it is determined that the vehicle is not able to continue operating along the first path, the logic is operable to: take a mitigating action using the vehicle while determining whether the autonomy system is able to identify the second path. Creusot, Levinson, Filley, and Salour are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Salour, as doing so beneficially allows the vehicle to delay or slow down when an object is detected in an obstructing position while making routing decisions based on how long the object has been in the obstructing position, as recognized by Salour (see at least [0059]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creusot, Levinson, and Filley in view of Akatsuka et al. (US 2024/0085905 A1), hereinafter Akatsuka.
Regarding claim 8, Creusot, Levinson, and Filley teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, Creusot does not outright teach that when it is determined that the autonomy system is unable to identify the second path, the method further includes: taking a mitigating action using the vehicle while requesting assistance from the teleoperations monitor arrangement. Akatsuka teaches a vehicle control method, comprising:
when it is determined that the autonomy system is unable to identify the second path, the method further includes: taking a mitigating action using the vehicle while requesting assistance from the teleoperations monitor arrangement.
Akatsuka teaches ([0106]): "Note that remote control may be requested from the remote operation target vehicle 200 side. For example, the remote operation target vehicle 200 during autonomous driving may face scenes in which autonomous driving is difficult. In this case, the remote operation target vehicle 200 stops and transmits a remote control request requesting remote control to the management device 300."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot, Levinson, and Filley to incorporate the teachings of Akatsuka to provide that when it is determined that the autonomy system is unable to identify the second path, the method further includes: taking a mitigating action using the vehicle while requesting assistance from the teleoperations monitor arrangement. Creusot, Levinson, Filley, and Akatsuka are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Salour, as doing so beneficially allows for stopping the vehicle when autonomous driving is difficult, and requesting remote control while the vehicle is stopped, as recognized by Akatsuka (see at least [0106]).
Claim(s) 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creusot in view of Levinson.
Regarding claim 16, Creusot teaches a system, comprising:
and a vehicle, the vehicle including an autonomy system having logic operable to operate the vehicle autonomously along a first path from a first point to a second point,
Creusot teaches ([0021]): "In various embodiments, the vehicle 10 is an autonomous vehicle and the road construction detection system 100 is incorporated into the autonomous vehicle 10 (hereinafter referred to as the autonomous vehicle 10). The autonomous vehicle 10 is, for example, a vehicle that is automatically controlled to carry passengers from one location to another." Creusot further teaches ([0022]): "In an exemplary embodiment, the autonomous vehicle 10 corresponds to a level four or level five automation system under the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) “J3016” standard taxonomy of automated driving levels. Using this terminology, a level four system indicates “high automation,” referring to a driving mode in which the automated driving system performs all aspects of the dynamic driving task, even if a human driver does not respond appropriately to a request to intervene. A level five system, on the other hand, indicates “full automation,” referring to a driving mode in which the automated driving system performs all aspects of the dynamic driving task under all roadway and environmental conditions that can be managed by a human driver." Creusot even further teaches ([0039]): "In accordance with various embodiments, controller 34 implements an autonomous driving system (ADS) 70... That is, suitable software and/or hardware components of controller 34..."
the logic operable to operate the vehicle autonomously further being operable to implement a perception system,
Creusot teaches ([0021]): "In various embodiments, the vehicle 10 is an autonomous vehicle and the road construction detection system 100 is incorporated into the autonomous vehicle 10 (hereinafter referred to as the autonomous vehicle 10). The autonomous vehicle 10 is, for example, a vehicle that is automatically controlled to carry passengers from one location to another." Creusot further teaches ([0047]): "However, as illustrated in FIG. 4, a road construction zone 200 is present along the intended route. In accordance with various embodiments, and as described in further detail below, road construction sensing system 100 (e.g., construction-related object recognition module 320) determines the presence of construction-related objects 270 (outputs 303 in FIG. 6) in the environment. Next, a determination is made (e.g., via construction zone determination module 330) as to whether construction zone 200 is of the type that might impact travel of vehicle 10 along its intended route (based, for example, on the number and types of construction related objects 270 within construction zone 200). The result of this determination is shown as output 304 in FIG. 6."
the perception system including logic operable to identify a work zone along the first path,
Creusot teaches ([0047]): "However, as illustrated in FIG. 4, a road construction zone 200 is present along the intended route. In accordance with various embodiments, and as described in further detail below, road construction sensing system 100 (e.g., construction-related object recognition module 320) determines the presence of construction-related objects 270 (outputs 303 in FIG. 6) in the environment. Next, a determination is made (e.g., via construction zone determination module 330) as to whether construction zone 200 is of the type that might impact travel of vehicle 10 along its intended route (based, for example, on the number and types of construction related objects 270 within construction zone 200). The result of this determination is shown as output 304 in FIG. 6."
wherein the autonomy system further includes logic operable to determine whether the vehicle is able to continue operating along the first path after identifying the work zone
Creusot teaches ([0047]): "However, as illustrated in FIG. 4, a road construction zone 200 is present along the intended route. In accordance with various embodiments, and as described in further detail below, road construction sensing system 100 (e.g., construction-related object recognition module 320) determines the presence of construction-related objects 270 (outputs 303 in FIG. 6) in the environment. Next, a determination is made (e.g., via construction zone determination module 330) as to whether construction zone 200 is of the type that might impact travel of vehicle 10 along its intended route (based, for example, on the number and types of construction related objects 270 within construction zone 200). The result of this determination is shown as output 304 in FIG. 6." Creusot further teaches ([0056]): "In one embodiment, construction zone determination module 330 receives outputs 303 associated with construction-related artifacts and objects by the various sensors and localizes them in 3D space by combining distance estimations and ray projection using the extrinsic parameters of the calibrated sensors. The nature and position of the construction-related objects 270 relative to the roadway lanes are used to determine various configurations of temporary traffic occlusion, including, without limitation: None (e.g., the objects are not on the road, but are located on a sidewalk or are associated with building construction), Partial (a portion, but not all, of a lane is occluded, allowing the car to nudge around the obstacle by using available free-space, regardless of mapped lane boundaries), Lane blocked (e.g., a lane is fully blocked and cannot be used by the vehicle, and thus the vehicle will attempt to change lanes), and Road blocked (e.g., no other lanes are available on the road, leading to a black-listing of the segment of road for use in subsequent route guidance)..."
and to determine whether a second path to the second point that routes past the work zone is feasible when it is determined that the vehicle is not able to continue operating along the first path,
Creusot teaches ([0057]): "Next, at 706, information regarding the nature of construction zone 200 is transmitted to an external server (e.g., route database server 53 in FIG. 2) and then propagated to other modules within the vehicle to generate peripheral behaviors such as reducing speed, preventive calls to a remote expert, warning the passenger, and/or the like. The construction-zone information might include, for example, the geographical location of zone 200 (e.g., latitude, longitude, etc.), the severity of the zone (e.g., ‘lane blocked’, ‘road blocked’, ‘partial’, etc.), and the route segments that are affected (e.g., ‘route segment 223’)..." Creusot further teaches ([0058]): "Finally, at 707, vehicle 10 (and/or another vehicle) receives alternate route information associated with the destination, avoiding route segments affected by the travel-impacting construction zone 200. In FIG. 4, for example, this results in a new route that does not include route segment 223."
However, Creusot does not outright teach a teleoperations monitor arrangement, wherein when the logic operable to determine whether the second path is feasible determines that the second path is not feasible, the logic is further operable to provide a supervisory request to the teleoperations monitor arrangement, the teleoperations monitor arrangement being arranged to determine whether the vehicle is capable of operating autonomously past the work zone. Levinson teaches adaptive autonomous vehicle planner logic, comprising:
a teleoperations monitor arrangement;
Levinson teaches ([0085]): " In a second example, consider that planner 1064 has generated a number of trajectories that are coextensive with a planner-generated path 1044 regardless of a detected unidentified object 1046. Planner 1064 may also generate a subset of candidate trajectories 1040, but in this example, the planner is unable to proceed given present confidence levels. If planner 1064 fails to determine an alternative path, a teleoperation request may be transmitted. In this case, a teleoperator may select one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030 that is consistent with teleoperator-based path 1042."
and wherein when the logic operable to determine whether the second path is feasible determines that the second path is not feasible, the logic is further operable to provide a supervisory request to the teleoperations monitor arrangement,
Levinson teaches ([0085]): " In a second example, consider that planner 1064 has generated a number of trajectories that are coextensive with a planner-generated path 1044 regardless of a detected unidentified object 1046. Planner 1064 may also generate a subset of candidate trajectories 1040, but in this example, the planner is unable to proceed given present confidence levels. If planner 1064 fails to determine an alternative path, a teleoperation request may be transmitted. In this case, a teleoperator may select one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030 that is consistent with teleoperator-based path 1042."
the teleoperations monitor arrangement being arranged to determine whether the vehicle is capable of operating autonomously past the work zone.
Levinson teaches ([0085]): " In a second example, consider that planner 1064 has generated a number of trajectories that are coextensive with a planner-generated path 1044 regardless of a detected unidentified object 1046. Planner 1064 may also generate a subset of candidate trajectories 1040, but in this example, the planner is unable to proceed given present confidence levels. If planner 1064 fails to determine an alternative path, a teleoperation request may be transmitted. In this case, a teleoperator may select one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030 that is consistent with teleoperator-based path 1042." Levinson further teaches ([0073]): "Planner 464 is configured to generate a number of candidate trajectories for accomplishing a goal to reaching a destination via a number of paths or routes that are available." FIG. 10, included below, demonstrates that the teleoperator selects one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030, amounting to a determination that the vehicle is capable of operating autonomously past the work zone along the selected trajectory.
PNG
media_image1.png
750
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot to incorporate the teachings of Levinson to provide a teleoperations monitor arrangement, wherein when the logic operable to determine whether the second path is feasible determines that the second path is not feasible, the logic is further operable to provide a supervisory request to the teleoperations monitor arrangement, the teleoperations monitor arrangement being arranged to determine whether the vehicle is capable of operating autonomously past the work zone. Creusot and Levinson are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Levinson, as incorporating the teleoperation request of Levinson advantageously allows for a teleoperator to select a candidate trajectory to facilitate travel in the case where route planner is incapable of determining an alternative path due to insufficient confidence, as recognized by Levinson (see at least [0085]).
Regarding claim 17, Creusot and Levinson teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 16. However, Creusot does not outright teach a teleoperations operation arrangement, the teleoperations operation arrangement configured to remotely operate the vehicle, wherein the teleoperations monitor arrangement is configured to monitor the vehicle and configured to assign the teleoperations operation arrangement to remotely operate the vehicle when it is determined that the vehicle is not capable of operating autonomously past the work zone. Levinson further teaches:
a teleoperations operation arrangement, the teleoperations operation arrangement configured to remotely operate the vehicle,
Levinson teaches ([0085]): " In a second example, consider that planner 1064 has generated a number of trajectories that are coextensive with a planner-generated path 1044 regardless of a detected unidentified object 1046. Planner 1064 may also generate a subset of candidate trajectories 1040, but in this example, the planner is unable to proceed given present confidence levels. If planner 1064 fails to determine an alternative path, a teleoperation request may be transmitted. In this case, a teleoperator may select one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030 that is consistent with teleoperator-based path 1042."
wherein the teleoperations monitor arrangement is configured to monitor the vehicle
Levinson teaches ([0082]): " FIG. 8 is a diagram depicting an example of a messaging application configured to exchange data among various applications, according to some embodiments. Diagram 800 depicts an teleoperator application 801 disposed in a teleoperator manager, and an autonomous vehicle application 830 disposed in an autonomous vehicle, whereby teleoperator applications 801 and autonomous vehicle application 830 exchange message data via a protocol that facilitates communications over a variety of networks, such as network 871, 872, and other networks 873... Teleoperator API 852 in teleoperator application 801 is configured to interface with teleoperator processes 803a to 803c, whereby teleoperator process 803b is associated with an autonomous vehicle identifier 804, and teleoperator process 803c is associated with an event identifier 806 (e.g., an identifier that specifies an intersection that may be problematic for collision-free path planning). Teleoperator API 852 in autonomous vehicle application 830 is configured to interface with an autonomous vehicle operating system 840, which includes sensing application 842, a perception application 844, a localization application 846, and a control application 848. In view of the foregoing, the above-described communications protocol may facilitate data exchanges to facilitate teleoperations as described herein." In the example of [0085], the teleoperations monitor arrangement is configured to monitor the vehicle for at least a teleoperation request.
and configured to assign the teleoperations operation arrangement to remotely operate the vehicle when it is determined that the vehicle is not capable of operating autonomously past the work zone.
Levinson teaches ([0085]): " In a second example, consider that planner 1064 has generated a number of trajectories that are coextensive with a planner-generated path 1044 regardless of a detected unidentified object 1046. Planner 1064 may also generate a subset of candidate trajectories 1040, but in this example, the planner is unable to proceed given present confidence levels. If planner 1064 fails to determine an alternative path, a teleoperation request may be transmitted. In this case, a teleoperator may select one of candidate trajectories 1040 to facilitate travel by autonomous vehicle 1030 that is consistent with teleoperator-based path 1042." Levinson further teaches ([0073]): "Planner 464 is configured to generate a number of candidate trajectories for accomplishing a goal to reaching a destination via a number of paths or routes that are available."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot and Levinson to further incorporate the teachings of Levinson to provide a teleoperations operation arrangement, the teleoperations operation arrangement configured to remotely operate the vehicle, wherein the teleoperations monitor arrangement is configured to monitor the vehicle and configured to assign the teleoperations operation arrangement to remotely operate the vehicle when it is determined that the vehicle is not capable of operating autonomously past the work zone. Creusot and Levinson are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Levinson, as incorporating the third path identification of Levinson advantageously allows for a teleoperator to select a candidate trajectory to facilitate travel in the case where the autonomy system is incapable of determining an alternative path due to insufficient confidence, as recognized by Levinson (see at least [0085]).
Regarding claim 20, Creusot and Levinson teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 16. Creusot further teaches:
the autonomy system further includes logic operable to operate the vehicle autonomously along the second path when it is determined that the second path is feasible.
Creusot teaches ([0057]): "Next, at 706, information regarding the nature of construction zone 200 is transmitted to an external server (e.g., route database server 53 in FIG. 2) and then propagated to other modules within the vehicle to generate peripheral behaviors such as reducing speed, preventive calls to a remote expert, warning the passenger, and/or the like. The construction-zone information might include, for example, the geographical location of zone 200 (e.g., latitude, longitude, etc.), the severity of the zone (e.g., ‘lane blocked’, ‘road blocked’, ‘partial’, etc.), and the route segments that are affected (e.g., ‘route segment 223’)..." Creusot further teaches ([0058]): "Finally, at 707, vehicle 10 (and/or another vehicle) receives alternate route information associated with the destination, avoiding route segments affected by the travel-impacting construction zone 200. In FIG. 4, for example, this results in a new route that does not include route segment 223." Creusot even further teaches ([0042]): "The vehicle control system 80 generates control signals for controlling the vehicle 10 according to the determined path."
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creusot and Levinson in view of Pedersen et al. (US 2020/0310417 A1), hereinafter Pedersen.
Regarding claim 18, Creusot and Levinson teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 17. However, Creusot does not outright teach that when it is determined that the vehicle is capable of operating autonomously past the work zone, the teleoperations monitor arrangement identifies a waypoint and provides the waypoint to the vehicle, and wherein the autonomy system generates a third path, the third path between a current location of the vehicle and the second point, the third path including the waypoint and arranged to route past the work zone. Pedersen teaches teleoperation for exception handling, comprising:
when it is determined that the vehicle is capable of operating autonomously past the work zone, the teleoperations monitor arrangement identifies a waypoint and provides the waypoint to the vehicle,
Pedersen teaches ([0020]): "When the AV encounters an exception situation, the AV can stop and request assistance from a tele-operator. For example, when the AV encounters an obstruction (e.g., a construction site, a stopped vehicle, etc.) in a roadway, the AV might not go around the obstruction if doing so means that the AV will travel through an area that is physically safe but is restricted by traffic regulations. Accordingly, a tele-operator (e.g., a human operator, a vehicle manager) can be tasked with assisting the AV in negotiating its problematic situation by, for example, mapping a path (i.e., a trajectory) for the AV around the obstruction. " Pedersen further teaches ([0088]): "The trajectory planning module 404 can generate a trajectory for the AV, from a source location to a destination location, by, for example, receiving map data, teleoperation data, and other input data; stitching (e.g., fusing, connecting, etc.) the input data longitudinally to determine a speed profile for a path from the source location to the destination location (e.g., the speed profile specifying how fast the AV can be driven along different segments of the path from the source location to the destination location);" Pedersen is modified such that the obstruction corresponds to the construction zone of Creusot.
and wherein the autonomy system generates a third path, the third path between a current location of the vehicle and the second point, the third path including the waypoint and arranged to route past the work zone.
Pedersen teaches ([0020]): "When the AV encounters an exception situation, the AV can stop and request assistance from a tele-operator. For example, when the AV encounters an obstruction (e.g., a construction site, a stopped vehicle, etc.) in a roadway, the AV might not go around the obstruction if doing so means that the AV will travel through an area that is physically safe but is restricted by traffic regulations. Accordingly, a tele-operator (e.g., a human operator, a vehicle manager) can be tasked with assisting the AV in negotiating its problematic situation by, for example, mapping a path (i.e., a trajectory) for the AV around the obstruction. " Pedersen further teaches ([0088]): "The trajectory planning module 404 can generate a trajectory for the AV, from a source location to a destination location, by, for example, receiving map data, teleoperation data, and other input data; stitching (e.g., fusing, connecting, etc.) the input data longitudinally to determine a speed profile for a path from the source location to the destination location (e.g., the speed profile specifying how fast the AV can be driven along different segments of the path from the source location to the destination location);" Pedersen is modified such that the obstruction corresponds to the construction zone of Creusot.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot and Levinson to incorporate the teachings of Pedersen to provide that when it is determined that the vehicle is capable of operating autonomously past the work zone, the teleoperations monitor arrangement identifies a waypoint and provides the waypoint to the vehicle, and wherein the autonomy system generates a third path, the third path between a current location of the vehicle and the second point, the third path including the waypoint and arranged to route past the work zone. Creusot, Levinson, and Pedersen are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Pedersen, as incorporating the teleoperations assistance of Pedersen advantageously assists the AV in autonomously navigating problematic situations by mapping a path for the AV around the obstruction, as recognized by Pedersen (see at least [0020] and [0088]).
Regarding claim 19, Creusot, Levinson, and Pedersen teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 18. However, Creusot does not outright teach that the autonomy system causes the vehicle to operate autonomously on the third path after the autonomy system determines the third path. Pedersen further teaches:
the autonomy system causes the vehicle to operate autonomously on the third path after the autonomy system determines the third path.
Pedersen teaches ([0020]): "When the AV encounters an exception situation, the AV can stop and request assistance from a tele-operator. For example, when the AV encounters an obstruction (e.g., a construction site, a stopped vehicle, etc.) in a roadway, the AV might not go around the obstruction if doing so means that the AV will travel through an area that is physically safe but is restricted by traffic regulations. Accordingly, a tele-operator (e.g., a human operator, a vehicle manager) can be tasked with assisting the AV in negotiating its problematic situation by, for example, mapping a path (i.e., a trajectory) for the AV around the obstruction." Pedersen further teaches ([0088]): "The trajectory planning module 404 can generate a trajectory for the AV, from a source location to a destination location, by, for example, receiving map data, teleoperation data, and other input data; stitching (e.g., fusing, connecting, etc.) the input data longitudinally to determine a speed profile for a path from the source location to the destination location (e.g., the speed profile specifying how fast the AV can be driven along different segments of the path from the source location to the destination location);"
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Creusot and Levinson to incorporate the teachings of Pedersen to provide that the autonomy system causes the vehicle to operate autonomously on the third path after the autonomy system determines the third path. Creusot, Levinson, and Pedersen are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle routing and control. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Pedersen, as incorporating the teleoperations assistance of Pedersen advantageously assists the AV in autonomously navigating problematic situations by mapping a path for the AV around the obstruction, as recognized by Pedersen (see at least [0020] and [0088]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mortazavi et al. (US 2020/0269877 A1) teaches solution path overlay interfaces for autonomous vehicles, including the use of a remote operator to define a solution path for navigating an unknown scenario, wherein the solution path considers roadways with construction zones (see at least [0036]). Bernhardt et al. (US 2024/0200975 A1) teaches a system and method for detecting active road work zones, including recommending changing a route for reaching a destination based on active road work zones on a current route taken by the vehicle (see at least [0090]). Shaffer et al. (US 2005/0131643 A1) teaches a method and system for communicating navigation information, including determining at least two routes to a destination, wherein the determined routes avoid a construction area or traffic accident (see at least [0006]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 FRANK T GLENN III whose telephone number is (571)272-5078. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM - 4:30PM 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/F.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights