DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action on the Merits in response to communications filed by applicant on December 17th, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the Claims filed on December 17th 2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are currently amended and pending, and claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are original, unamended, and pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed on 11/11/2025 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11100339 B2 ("Ma") in view of US 11738772 B1 ("Beller").
Regarding claim 1, Ma teaches a path determination system comprising a processor and a memory, the processor configured to (Ma: Figure 5 computing device 504, Column 13 lines 53-67, “FIG. 5 illustrates a block diagram of an example system that implements the techniques discussed herein. In some instances, the system 500 may include a vehicle 502, which may represent the autonomous vehicle 102 in FIG. 1.”, Column 15 lines 23-50, “Additionally, the drive component(s) 512 may include a drive component controller which may receive and preprocess data from the sensor(s) and to control operation of the various vehicle systems. In some instances, the drive component controller may include one or more processors and memory communicatively coupled with the one or more processors. The memory may store one or more components to perform various functionalities of the drive component(s) 512.”, Column 15 lines 51-65, “The vehicle computing device(s) 504 may include processor(s) 518 and memory 520 communicatively coupled with the one or more processors 518. Computing device(s) 514 may also include processor(s) 522, and/or memory 524. The processor(s) 518 and/or 522 may be any suitable processor capable of executing instructions to process data and perform operations as described herein.”):
receive sensor data from one or more sensors of an autonomous vehicle (Ma: Column 4 lines 39-52, “According to the techniques discussed herein, the autonomous vehicle 102 may receive sensor data from sensor(s) 104 of the autonomous vehicle 102. For example, the sensor(s) 104 may include a location sensor (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS) sensor), an inertia sensor (e.g., an accelerometer sensor, a gyroscope sensor, etc.), a magnetic field sensor (e.g., a compass), a position/velocity/acceleration sensor (e.g., a speedometer, a drive system sensor), a depth position sensor ( e.g., a lidar sensor, a radar sensor, a sonar sensor, a time of flight (ToF) camera, a depth camera), an image sensor (e.g., a visible light spectrum camera, a depth camera, an infrared camera), an audio sensor (e.g., a microphone), and/or environmental sensor (e.g., a barometer, a hygrometer, etc.).”);
identify, based on the sensor data, (i) one or more forward travel lanes and (ii) one or more objects (Ma: Column 5 lines 39-48, “The perception engine 114 may receive sensor data from sensor( s) 104 and may determine perception data therefrom. For example, perception engine 114 may include one or more machine-learned (ML) models and/or other computer executable instructions for detecting, identifying, segmenting, classifying, and/or tracking objects from sensor data collected from the environment of the autonomous vehicle 102. In some examples, the perception engine 114 may comprise a component for detecting whether a lane is open or closed.”, Column 5 lines 49-62, “In the illustrated example scenario 100, autonomous vehicle 102 may receive sensor data from one or more of the sensor(s) 104 as the autonomous vehicle 102 approaches a collection of traffic cones 120. Traffic cones 120 may be one example of safety objects associated with a lane closure. The perception engine 114 may comprise one or more ML models for detecting, based at least in part on the sensor data, object(s) in the environment surrounding the autonomous vehicle 102 and/or classifying the object(s). For example, the autonomous vehicle 102 may receive an image and/or point cloud data (e.g., data from lidar, radar, sonar), which the autonomous vehicle 102 may determine is associated with one or more safety objects (e.g., by determining an object detection is associated with a safety class).”, Column 6 lines 9-23, “In some examples, if at least one of the object detections generated by the perception engine 114 indicates a classification associated with a safety object (i.e., a "safety class"), the perception engine 114 may trigger a lane closure analysis. In an additional or alternate example, the autonomous vehicle 102 may analyze at least a current lane 122; any adjacent lane(s), such as adjacent lane 124; and/or any other lane to determine whether the lane is open or closed. For example, the perception engine 114 may continuously or periodically conduct the lane closure analysis described herein, regardless of whether a safety object has been detected, and/or if a safety object is detected the perception engine 114 may trigger a lane analysis in addition to a periodic lane analysis.”. As can be seen from the cited passages, the system is clearly configured to detect one or more objects based the sensor data. Additionally, as can be seen in Column 6 lines 9-23, the perception engine is configured to identify the travel lanes of the road the vehicle is traveling.);
determine the one or more objects form a barrier indicating closure of all of the one or more forward travel lanes (Ma: Column 9 lines 9-24, “At operation 220, example process 200 may comprise determining whether a distance between a dilated object detection another object detection, another dilated object detection, and/or an extent of a lane and/or roadway meets or exceeds a distance threshold, according to any of the techniques discussed herein. In some examples, the distance threshold may correspond to a width and/or length of the autonomous vehicle ( e.g., depending on the dimension in which the distance was measured-in the depicted example, the distance threshold may be based at least in part on a width of the autonomous vehicle) and/or a tolerance. Operation 220 may functionally determine whether the autonomous vehicle would fit between dilated object detections (along a longitudinal or lateral axis of the vehicle, for example). If the distance is less than the distance threshold, example process 200 may continue to operation 222.”, Column 9 lines 25-44, “At operation 222, example process 200 may comprise determining a closed status indicating that the lane is closed, according to any of the techniques discussed herein. In some examples, operation 222 may comprise any method of setting and/or saving a state in association with the analyzed lane such as, for example, flipping a flag in a register, transitioning a state machine to a state to identify the lane as being closed. For example, FIG. 2A depicts lane states 224, which comprise identifying an analyzed lane as being closed. In some instances, the status may be associated with a portion of a lane based at least in part on a dilated object detection and/or object detection closest to the autonomous vehicle.”. The cited passages teach determining if the detected objects are spaced in such a way that the vehicle can fit between them and if the space between the objects ca not allow the vehicle to pass, setting the lane to a closed status. This is clearly a method of determining if the objects create a blockage or barrier on the road.);
when the barrier indicates closure of all of the one or more forward travel lanes, determine an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle (Ma: Column 7 lines 1-32, “The planner 112 may use the perception data, including the lane closed/open states discussed herein, to determine one or more trajectories to control the autonomous vehicle 102 to traverse a path or route and/or otherwise control operation of the autonomous vehicle 102, though any such operation may be performed in various other components. For example, the planner 112 may determine a route for the autonomous vehicle 102 from a first location to a second location; generate, substantially simultaneously, a plurality of potential trajectories for controlling motion of the autonomous vehicle 102 in accordance with a receding horizon technique ( e.g., 1 micro-second, half a second, every 10 seconds, and the like) and based at least in part on the lane states 130 (which may be associated with the map 116 and/or state tracker 118) to traverse the route ( e.g., in order to avoid any of the detected objects and/or to avoid operating in a closed lane); and select one of the potential trajectories as a trajectory 136 of the autonomous vehicle 102 that may be used to generate a drive control signal that may be transmitted to drive components of the autonomous vehicle 102.”. As can clearly be seen from the cited passage, the system is configured to determine a trajectory for the vehicle based on the lane stat (i.e. whether or not the lane is closed).),
the alternative travel path having boundaries defined at least in part by the one or more objects and deviating at least in part from the one or more travel lanes (Ma: Figures 3 and 4, Column 11 line 60 – Column 12 line 3, “FIG. 3 illustrates an aerial view of an example scenario 300 in which a group of safety objects designate a new lane that is not associated with traditional lane markings. The example scenario 300 in FIG. 3 depicts a shifted taper, although many other lane modifications exist such as, for example, a flagging taper, shoulder taper, merging taper, one-lane two-way traffic taper, and the like. In some examples, the techniques described herein may determine that all available lanes ( e.g., lanes associated with a same direction of travel as the vehicle) are closed in a scenario like example scenario 300.”, Column 12 lines 4-36, “Example scenario 300 includes a roadway having two directions of traffic, direction of traffic 302 and direction of traffic 304, where each direction of traffic has two lanes associated therewith. Direction of traffic 304 includes two traditional lanes (left traditional lane 306 and right traditional lane 308), as demarcated according to the hashed lane markers and bounded by the double (yellow) line 310 and a roadway extent 312. For the sake of example, it is assumed that the autonomous vehicle 102 has already determined that the right traditional lane 308 is closed (e.g., the autonomous vehicle may have stored and/or maintained a closed status in association with the right traditional lane 308) based at least in part on a collection of safety objects in the roadway (e.g., unlabeled due to their number and represented as circles). However, the autonomous vehicle 102, upon coming upon the shifted taper, may determine that the left traditional lane 306 is closed (e.g., due to the safety objects in that lane) and/or that a lane 314 associated with the (opposite) direction of traffic 302 is unavailable since the direction of traffic 302 is opposite direction of traffic 304 with which the autonomous vehicle 102 is associated and/or because of detecting the double line 314. In other words, by applying the techniques discussed in regard to FIG. 2, the autonomous vehicle 102 may determine that all the (traditional) lane(s) associated with a direction of traffic are blocked (e.g., no traditional lane has an opening wide enough for an autonomous vehicle 102 to pass through according to the techniques discussed above in regard to FIG. 2). The autonomous vehicle 102 may be equipped with additional or alternative techniques for determining an alternative lane shape and/or an open/closed status associated therewith. The alternative lane shape may eschew traditional lane markings in some instances.” Column 12 line 63 – Column 13 line 4, “The autonomous vehicle 102 may generate such a shape to have a contiguous boundary and such that there is at least one lane having a minimum width. The minimum width may be a distance that is greater than the threshold distance (so that the shape generated may avoid including safety objects of an opposite side of the tapered lane). In some examples, an ML model may be trained to determine such a shape ( e.g., based at least in part on a classification task, clustering task, and/or the like).” Column 13 lines 5-16, “In some examples, the autonomous vehicle 102 may repeat this for a second set of safety objects (e.g., the leftward safety objects) associated with a second closed lane status and/or based at least in part on an open lane status. In other words, the autonomous vehicle 102 may inversely determine a shape that positively identifies an open lane, based at least in part on an open lane status and one or more safety objects. In some examples, the autonomous vehicle may detect a safety sign that symbolizes a taper, lane merge, and/or other traffic modification and may determine the alternative lane shape based at least in part on the symbols on the safety sign.”. The cited passage clearly shows that the alternate travel path is defined by the one or more object and deviates at least in part from the one or more forward travel lanes.);
control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path (Ma: Column 7 lines 1 -32, “In the depicted example, planner may generate and/or select trajectory 136 based at least in part on a closed lane status 134 associated with the current lane 122. Trajectory 136 may comprise instructions for actuating a drive system to cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to merge into an adjacent lane 124 (which may be associated with a same direction of travel and an open lane status 132).”).
Ma does not teach determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and
in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path.
Beller, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle (Beller: Figure 4, Column 13 lines 23-35, “In various examples, the action may include modifying a vehicle trajectory to cause the vehicle 404 to travel a second path (e.g., different path). The second path may include a vehicle path 416 that circumnavigates the object(s) 406. The second path and/or associated vehicle trajectory may result in the vehicle 404 continuing progress toward the destination while avoiding the object(s) 406 by at least a minimum safe distance. The vehicle trajectory and/or second path may be associated with a position of the vehicle 404 in the lane 418, a lane change (e.g., into an adjacent lane 426), and/or adjusting a position of the vehicle 404 at least partially outside the lane 418 (e.g., onto a shoulder, into a bike lane, or the like) to safely navigate around the object(s) 406.”, Column 13 lines 36-50, “In various examples, the action may include adjusting a position in a lane 418 to navigate around the object(s) 406. In some examples, the planning component 422 may determine whether the vehicle 404 is able to proceed around the object(s) 406 in the lane 418 (e.g., whether adjusting a position is a viable action). In such examples, the planning component 422 may determine the distance (D) between the object(s) 406 and/or the bounding box 420 associated therewith and a lane marker 424 (e.g., road marking delineating the edge of the lane, etc.). The planning component 422 may determine whether the distance (D) is equal to or greater than a width of the vehicle 404 and/or a safety buffer (e.g., minimum safe distance) from the object(s) 406. As discussed above, the minimum safe distance may be based on the classification 414 associated with the object(s) 406.”. The cited passages teach that the vehicle system is configured to determine a trajectory to avoid a detected object and determine if the trajectory allows the vehicle to proceed around the detected object. Furthermore, the system is configured to determine if the distance from the object to a marker is larger than a width of the vehicle or a safety buffer. This clearly is a determination of if the travel path satisfies a width sized for the vehicle. Additionally, the travel path of the vehicle is restricted to an adjacent lane or a shoulder/bike lane of the road, all of which are clearly paved portions.); and
in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path (Beller: Figure 4, Column 13 lines 23-35, “In various examples, the action may include modifying a vehicle trajectory to cause the vehicle 404 to travel a second path (e.g., different path). The second path may include a vehicle path 416 that circumnavigates the object(s) 406. The second path and/or associated vehicle trajectory may result in the vehicle 404 continuing progress toward the destination while avoiding the object(s) 406 by at least a minimum safe distance. The vehicle trajectory and/or second path may be associated with a position of the vehicle 404 in the lane 418, a lane change (e.g., into an adjacent lane 426), and/or adjusting a position of the vehicle 404 at least partially outside the lane 418 (e.g., onto a shoulder, into a bike lane, or the like) to safely navigate around the object(s) 406.”, Column 13 lines 36-50, “In various examples, the action may include adjusting a position in a lane 418 to navigate around the object(s) 406. In some examples, the planning component 422 may determine whether the vehicle 404 is able to proceed around the object(s) 406 in the lane 418 (e.g., whether adjusting a position is a viable action). In such examples, the planning component 422 may determine the distance (D) between the object(s) 406 and/or the bounding box 420 associated therewith and a lane marker 424 (e.g., road marking delineating the edge of the lane, etc.). The planning component 422 may determine whether the distance (D) is equal to or greater than a width of the vehicle 404 and/or a safety buffer (e.g., minimum safe distance) from the object(s) 406. As discussed above, the minimum safe distance may be based on the classification 414 associated with the object(s) 406.”. The cited passages clearly show that is the distance between the objects and the lane markers is sufficiently sized for the width of the vehicle, the vehicle will travel along the alternate path.).
Ma teaches a path determination system. Ma does not teach determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path. Beller teaches determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the path determination system taught in Ma with determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path taught in Beller. Furthermore, the path determination system taught in Ma is already configured to determine if the space between detected objects along a vehicles path meet a width threshold such that the vehicle can pass through them and controls the vehicle to travel the alternat path, so modifying the system such that it determines if the alternated travel path meets a width threshold using the method taught in Beller would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a path determination system determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the path determination system taught in Ma with determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path taught in Beller with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Ma in view of Beller teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: while controlling the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path, identify an end of the closure of all of the one or more forward travel lanes (Ma: Column 10 lines 22-36, “Turning to FIG. 2D, at operation 232, example process 200 may comprise determining that sensor data indicates an absence of a safety object associated with a ( closed) lane for a duration of time that meets or exceeds a threshold duration, according to any of the techniques discussed herein. For example, example process 200 may comprise tracking a duration of time that no new object detections are received that identify an object and/or a safety object in a closed lane. That duration of time may be reset any time a new object detection identifies such an object (example process 200 may continue to operation 230 in such an instance). For example, the status associated with a closed lane may thereby be set to an open lane status shortly after an autonomous vehicle clears a last traffic cone, as depicted in FIG. 2D.”. The cited passage clearly shows that the method determines an end of the lane closure.);
control the autonomous vehicle to travel in one of the one or more forward travel lanes at the end of the closure (Ma: Column 7 lines 1-32, “The planner 112 may use the perception data, including the lane closed/open states discussed herein, to determine one or more trajectories to control the autonomous vehicle 102 to traverse a path or route and/or otherwise control operation of the autonomous vehicle 102, though any such operation may be performed in various other components. For example, the planner 112 may determine a route for the autonomous vehicle 102 from a first location to a second location; generate, substantially simultaneously, a plurality of potential trajectories for controlling motion of the autonomous vehicle 102 in accordance with a receding horizon technique ( e.g., 1 micro-second, half a second, every 10 seconds, and the like) and based at least in part on the lane states 130 (which may be associated with the map 116 and/or state tracker 118) to traverse the route ( e.g., in order to avoid any of the detected objects and/or to avoid operating in a closed lane); and select one of the potential trajectories as a trajectory 136 of the autonomous vehicle 102 that may be used to generate a drive control signal that may be transmitted to drive components of the autonomous vehicle 102.”. The system taught in Ma is clearly configured to control the vehicle to travel in the open travel lanes.).
Regarding claim 4, Ma in view of Beller teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: determine the one or more forward travel lanes includes a plurality of forward travel lanes (Ma: Column 6 lines 9-23, “In some examples, if at least one of the object detections generated by the perception engine 114 indicates a classification associated with a safety object (i.e., a "safety class"), the perception engine 114 may trigger a lane closure analysis. In an additional or alternate example, the autonomous vehicle 102 may analyze at least a current lane 122; any adjacent lane(s), such as adjacent lane 124; and/or any other lane to determine whether the lane is open or closed. For example, the perception engine 114 may continuously or periodically conduct the lane closure analysis described herein, regardless of whether a safety object has been detected, and/or if a safety object is detected the perception engine 114 may trigger a lane analysis in addition to a periodic lane analysis.”. As can be seen in the cited passage, the perception engine is configured to identify the travel lanes of the road the vehicle is traveling.); and
when the barrier indicates closure of less than all of the plurality of forward travel lanes, control the autonomous vehicle to travel in an open travel lane of the plurality of forward travel lanes (Ma: Column 7 lines 1 -32, “In the depicted example, planner may generate and/or select trajectory 136 based at least in part on a closed lane status 134 associated with the current lane 122. Trajectory 136 may comprise instructions for actuating a drive system to cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to merge into an adjacent lane 124 (which may be associated with a same direction of travel and an open lane status 132).”. The cited passage clearly teaches controlling the vehicle to travel in an open travel lane when not all of the travel lanes are closed.).
Regarding claim 5, Ma in view of Beller teaches wherein to determine the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle, the processor is configured to determine a road shoulder is adequate for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle (Beller: Column 13 lines 23-35, “In various examples, the action may include modifying a vehicle trajectory to cause the vehicle 404 to travel a second path (e.g., different path). The second path may include a vehicle path 416 that circumnavigates the object(s) 406. The second path and/or associated vehicle trajectory may result in the vehicle 404 continuing progress toward the destination while avoiding the object(s) 406 by at least a minimum safe distance. The vehicle trajectory and/or second path may be associated with a position of the vehicle 404 in the lane 418, a lane change (e.g., into an adjacent lane 426), and/or adjusting a position of the vehicle 404 at least partially outside the lane 418 (e.g., onto a shoulder, into a bike lane, or the like) to safely navigate around the object(s) 406.”, Column 13 lines 36-50, “In various examples, the action may include adjusting a position in a lane 418 to navigate around the object(s) 406. In some examples, the planning component 422 may determine whether the vehicle 404 is able to proceed around the object(s) 406 in the lane 418 (e.g., whether adjusting a position is a viable action). In such examples, the planning component 422 may determine the distance (D) between the object(s) 406 and/or the bounding box 420 associated therewith and a lane marker 424 (e.g., road marking delineating the edge of the lane, etc.). The planning component 422 may determine whether the distance (D) is equal to or greater than a width of the vehicle 404 and/or a safety buffer (e.g., minimum safe distance) from the object(s) 406. As discussed above, the minimum safe distance may be based on the classification 414 associated with the object(s) 406.”. The cited passages teach that the vehicle system is configured to determine a trajectory to avoid a detected object and determine if the trajectory allows the vehicle to proceed around the detected object. As can clearly be seen the new trajectory can allow the vehicle to enter the shoulder of the road.).
Regarding claim 7, Ma in view of Beller teaches wherein to determine the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle, the processor is configured to determine a candidate alternative travel path includes a paved portion satisfying a threshold width (Beller: Column 13 lines 23-35, “In various examples, the action may include modifying a vehicle trajectory to cause the vehicle 404 to travel a second path (e.g., different path). The second path may include a vehicle path 416 that circumnavigates the object(s) 406. The second path and/or associated vehicle trajectory may result in the vehicle 404 continuing progress toward the destination while avoiding the object(s) 406 by at least a minimum safe distance. The vehicle trajectory and/or second path may be associated with a position of the vehicle 404 in the lane 418, a lane change (e.g., into an adjacent lane 426), and/or adjusting a position of the vehicle 404 at least partially outside the lane 418 (e.g., onto a shoulder, into a bike lane, or the like) to safely navigate around the object(s) 406.”, Column 13 lines 36-50, “In various examples, the action may include adjusting a position in a lane 418 to navigate around the object(s) 406. In some examples, the planning component 422 may determine whether the vehicle 404 is able to proceed around the object(s) 406 in the lane 418 (e.g., whether adjusting a position is a viable action). In such examples, the planning component 422 may determine the distance (D) between the object(s) 406 and/or the bounding box 420 associated therewith and a lane marker 424 (e.g., road marking delineating the edge of the lane, etc.). The planning component 422 may determine whether the distance (D) is equal to or greater than a width of the vehicle 404 and/or a safety buffer (e.g., minimum safe distance) from the object(s) 406. As discussed above, the minimum safe distance may be based on the classification 414 associated with the object(s) 406.”. The cited passages teach that the vehicle system is configured to determine a trajectory to avoid a detected object and determine if the trajectory allows the vehicle to proceed around the detected object. Furthermore, the system is configured to determine if the distance from the object to a marker is larger than a width of the vehicle or a safety buffer. This clearly is a determination of if the travel path satisfies a width threshold. Additionally, the travel path of the vehicle is restricted to an adjacent lane or a shoulder/bike lane of the road, all of which are clearly paved portions.).
Regarding claim 8, Ma teaches a method for path determination, the method comprising (Ma: Figures 2A-E, Column 7 lines 1-32, “In the depicted example, planner may generate and/or select trajectory 136 based at least in part on a closed lane status 134 associated with the current lane 122. Trajectory 136 may comprise instructions for actuating a drive system to cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to merge into an adjacent lane 124 (which may be associated with a same direction of travel and an open lane status 132).”, Column 7 lines 34-43, “FIGS. 2A-2E illustrate an example process 200 for analyzing a lane to determine a status of the lane. In some examples, example process 200 may be accomplished by component(s) of perception engine 114.”):
identifying, based on the sensor data, (i) one or more forward travel lanes and (ii) one or more objects (Ma: Column 5 lines 39-48, “The perception engine 114 may receive sensor data from sensor( s) 104 and may determine perception data therefrom. For example, perception engine 114 may include one or more machine-learned (ML) models and/or other computer executable instructions for detecting, identifying, segmenting, classifying, and/or tracking objects from sensor data collected from the environment of the autonomous vehicle 102. In some examples, the perception engine 114 may comprise a component for detecting whether a lane is open or closed.”, Column 5 lines 49-62, “In the illustrated example scenario 100, autonomous vehicle 102 may receive sensor data from one or more of the sensor(s) 104 as the autonomous vehicle 102 approaches a collection of traffic cones 120. Traffic cones 120 may be one example of safety objects associated with a lane closure. The perception engine 114 may comprise one or more ML models for detecting, based at least in part on the sensor data, object(s) in the environment surrounding the autonomous vehicle 102 and/or classifying the object(s). For example, the autonomous vehicle 102 may receive an image and/or point cloud data (e.g., data from lidar, radar, sonar), which the autonomous vehicle 102 may determine is associated with one or more safety objects (e.g., by determining an object detection is associated with a safety class).”, Column 6 lines 9-23, “In some examples, if at least one of the object detections generated by the perception engine 114 indicates a classification associated with a safety object (i.e., a "safety class"), the perception engine 114 may trigger a lane closure analysis. In an additional or alternate example, the autonomous vehicle 102 may analyze at least a current lane 122; any adjacent lane(s), such as adjacent lane 124; and/or any other lane to determine whether the lane is open or closed. For example, the perception engine 114 may continuously or periodically conduct the lane closure analysis described herein, regardless of whether a safety object has been detected, and/or if a safety object is detected the perception engine 114 may trigger a lane analysis in addition to a periodic lane analysis.”. As can be seen from the cited passages, the system is clearly configured to detect one or more objects based the sensor data. Additionally, as can be seen in Column 6 lines 9-23, the perception engine is configured to identify the travel lanes of the road the vehicle is traveling.);
determining the one or more objects form a barrier indicating closure of all of the one or more forward travel lanes (Ma: Column 9 lines 9-24, “At operation 220, example process 200 may comprise determining whether a distance between a dilated object detection another object detection, another dilated object detection, and/or an extent of a lane and/or roadway meets or exceeds a distance threshold, according to any of the techniques discussed herein. In some examples, the distance threshold may correspond to a width and/or length of the autonomous vehicle ( e.g., depending on the dimension in which the distance was measured-in the depicted example, the distance threshold may be based at least in part on a width of the autonomous vehicle) and/or a tolerance. Operation 220 may functionally determine whether the autonomous vehicle would fit between dilated object detections (along a longitudinal or lateral axis of the vehicle, for example). If the distance is less than the distance threshold, example process 200 may continue to operation 222.”, Column 9 lines 25-44, “At operation 222, example process 200 may comprise determining a closed status indicating that the lane is closed, according to any of the techniques discussed herein. In some examples, operation 222 may comprise any method of setting and/or saving a state in association with the analyzed lane such as, for example, flipping a flag in a register, transitioning a state machine to a state to identify the lane as being closed. For example, FIG. 2A depicts lane states 224, which comprise identifying an analyzed lane as being closed. In some instances, the status may be associated with a portion of a lane based at least in part on a dilated object detection and/or object detection closest to the autonomous vehicle.”. The cited passages teach determining if the detected objects are spaced in such a way that the vehicle can fit between them and if the space between the objects ca not allow the vehicle to pass, setting the lane to a closed status. This is clearly a method of determining if the objects create a blockage or barrier on the road.);
when the barrier indicates closure of all of the one or more forward travel lanes, determining an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle (Ma: Column 7 lines 1-32, “The planner 112 may use the perception data, including the lane closed/open states discussed herein, to determine one or more trajectories to control the autonomous vehicle 102 to traverse a path or route and/or otherwise control operation of the autonomous vehicle 102, though any such operation may be performed in various other components. For example, the planner 112 may determine a route for the autonomous vehicle 102 from a first location to a second location; generate, substantially simultaneously, a plurality of potential trajectories for controlling motion of the autonomous vehicle 102 in accordance with a receding horizon technique ( e.g., 1 micro-second, half a second, every 10 seconds, and the like) and based at least in part on the lane states 130 (which may be associated with the map 116 and/or state tracker 118) to traverse the route ( e.g., in order to avoid any of the detected objects and/or to avoid operating in a closed lane); and select one of the potential trajectories as a trajectory 136 of the autonomous vehicle 102 that may be used to generate a drive control signal that may be transmitted to drive components of the autonomous vehicle 102.”. As can clearly be seen from the cited passage, the system is configured to determine a trajectory for the vehicle based on the lane stat (i.e. whether or not the lane is closed).),
the alternative travel path having boundaries defined at least in part by the one or more objects and deviating at least in part from the one or more travel lanes (Ma: Figures 3 and 4, Column 11 line 60 – Column 12 line 3, “FIG. 3 illustrates an aerial view of an example scenario 300 in which a group of safety objects designate a new lane that is not associated with traditional lane markings. The example scenario 300 in FIG. 3 depicts a shifted taper, although many other lane modifications exist such as, for example, a flagging taper, shoulder taper, merging taper, one-lane two-way traffic taper, and the like. In some examples, the techniques described herein may determine that all available lanes ( e.g., lanes associated with a same direction of travel as the vehicle) are closed in a scenario like example scenario 300.”, Column 12 lines 4-36, “Example scenario 300 includes a roadway having two directions of traffic, direction of traffic 302 and direction of traffic 304, where each direction of traffic has two lanes associated therewith. Direction of traffic 304 includes two traditional lanes (left traditional lane 306 and right traditional lane 308), as demarcated according to the hashed lane markers and bounded by the double (yellow) line 310 and a roadway extent 312. For the sake of example, it is assumed that the autonomous vehicle 102 has already determined that the right traditional lane 308 is closed (e.g., the autonomous vehicle may have stored and/or maintained a closed status in association with the right traditional lane 308) based at least in part on a collection of safety objects in the roadway (e.g., unlabeled due to their number and represented as circles). However, the autonomous vehicle 102, upon coming upon the shifted taper, may determine that the left traditional lane 306 is closed (e.g., due to the safety objects in that lane) and/or that a lane 314 associated with the (opposite) direction of traffic 302 is unavailable since the direction of traffic 302 is opposite direction of traffic 304 with which the autonomous vehicle 102 is associated and/or because of detecting the double line 314. In other words, by applying the techniques discussed in regard to FIG. 2, the autonomous vehicle 102 may determine that all the (traditional) lane(s) associated with a direction of traffic are blocked (e.g., no traditional lane has an opening wide enough for an autonomous vehicle 102 to pass through according to the techniques discussed above in regard to FIG. 2). The autonomous vehicle 102 may be equipped with additional or alternative techniques for determining an alternative lane shape and/or an open/closed status associated therewith. The alternative lane shape may eschew traditional lane markings in some instances.” Column 12 line 63 – Column 13 line 4, “The autonomous vehicle 102 may generate such a shape to have a contiguous boundary and such that there is at least one lane having a minimum width. The minimum width may be a distance that is greater than the threshold distance (so that the shape generated may avoid including safety objects of an opposite side of the tapered lane). In some examples, an ML model may be trained to determine such a shape ( e.g., based at least in part on a classification task, clustering task, and/or the like).” Column 13 lines 5-16, “In some examples, the autonomous vehicle 102 may repeat this for a second set of safety objects (e.g., the leftward safety objects) associated with a second closed lane status and/or based at least in part on an open lane status. In other words, the autonomous vehicle 102 may inversely determine a shape that positively identifies an open lane, based at least in part on an open lane status and one or more safety objects. In some examples, the autonomous vehicle may detect a safety sign that symbolizes a taper, lane merge, and/or other traffic modification and may determine the alternative lane shape based at least in part on the symbols on the safety sign.”. The cited passage clearly shows that the alternate travel path is defined by the one or more object and deviates at least in part from the one or more forward travel lanes.);
control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path (Ma: Column 7 lines 1 -32, “In the depicted example, planner may generate and/or select trajectory 136 based at least in part on a closed lane status 134 associated with the current lane 122. Trajectory 136 may comprise instructions for actuating a drive system to cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to merge into an adjacent lane 124 (which may be associated with a same direction of travel and an open lane status 132).”).
Ma does not teach determining the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and
in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, controlling the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path.
Beller, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle (Beller: Figure 4, Column 13 lines 23-35, “In various examples, the action may include modifying a vehicle trajectory to cause the vehicle 404 to travel a second path (e.g., different path). The second path may include a vehicle path 416 that circumnavigates the object(s) 406. The second path and/or associated vehicle trajectory may result in the vehicle 404 continuing progress toward the destination while avoiding the object(s) 406 by at least a minimum safe distance. The vehicle trajectory and/or second path may be associated with a position of the vehicle 404 in the lane 418, a lane change (e.g., into an adjacent lane 426), and/or adjusting a position of the vehicle 404 at least partially outside the lane 418 (e.g., onto a shoulder, into a bike lane, or the like) to safely navigate around the object(s) 406.”, Column 13 lines 36-50, “In various examples, the action may include adjusting a position in a lane 418 to navigate around the object(s) 406. In some examples, the planning component 422 may determine whether the vehicle 404 is able to proceed around the object(s) 406 in the lane 418 (e.g., whether adjusting a position is a viable action). In such examples, the planning component 422 may determine the distance (D) between the object(s) 406 and/or the bounding box 420 associated therewith and a lane marker 424 (e.g., road marking delineating the edge of the lane, etc.). The planning component 422 may determine whether the distance (D) is equal to or greater than a width of the vehicle 404 and/or a safety buffer (e.g., minimum safe distance) from the object(s) 406. As discussed above, the minimum safe distance may be based on the classification 414 associated with the object(s) 406.”. The cited passages teach that the vehicle system is configured to determine a trajectory to avoid a detected object and determine if the trajectory allows the vehicle to proceed around the detected object. Furthermore, the system is configured to determine if the distance from the object to a marker is larger than a width of the vehicle or a safety buffer. This clearly is a determination of if the travel path satisfies a width sized for the vehicle. Additionally, the travel path of the vehicle is restricted to an adjacent lane or a shoulder/bike lane of the road, all of which are clearly paved portions.); and
in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, controlling the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path (Beller: Figure 4, Column 13 lines 23-35, “In various examples, the action may include modifying a vehicle trajectory to cause the vehicle 404 to travel a second path (e.g., different path). The second path may include a vehicle path 416 that circumnavigates the object(s) 406. The second path and/or associated vehicle trajectory may result in the vehicle 404 continuing progress toward the destination while avoiding the object(s) 406 by at least a minimum safe distance. The vehicle trajectory and/or second path may be associated with a position of the vehicle 404 in the lane 418, a lane change (e.g., into an adjacent lane 426), and/or adjusting a position of the vehicle 404 at least partially outside the lane 418 (e.g., onto a shoulder, into a bike lane, or the like) to safely navigate around the object(s) 406.”, Column 13 lines 36-50, “In various examples, the action may include adjusting a position in a lane 418 to navigate around the object(s) 406. In some examples, the planning component 422 may determine whether the vehicle 404 is able to proceed around the object(s) 406 in the lane 418 (e.g., whether adjusting a position is a viable action). In such examples, the planning component 422 may determine the distance (D) between the object(s) 406 and/or the bounding box 420 associated therewith and a lane marker 424 (e.g., road marking delineating the edge of the lane, etc.). The planning component 422 may determine whether the distance (D) is equal to or greater than a width of the vehicle 404 and/or a safety buffer (e.g., minimum safe distance) from the object(s) 406. As discussed above, the minimum safe distance may be based on the classification 414 associated with the object(s) 406.”. The cited passages clearly show that is the distance between the objects and the lane markers is sufficiently sized for the width of the vehicle, the vehicle will travel along the alternate path.).
Ma teaches a path determination method. Ma does not teach determining the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, controlling the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path. Beller teaches determining the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, controlling the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the path determination method taught in Ma with determining the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, controlling the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path taught in Beller. Furthermore, the path determination method taught in Ma is already configured to determine if the space between detected objects along a vehicles path meet a width threshold such that the vehicle can pass through them and controls the vehicle to travel the alternat path, so modifying the method such that it determines if the alternated travel path meets a width threshold using the method taught in Beller would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a path determination method comprising: determining the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, controlling the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the path determination method taught in Ma with determining the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, controlling the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path taught in Beller with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Ma in view of Beller teaches further comprising: while controlling the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path, identify an end of the closure of all of the one or more forward travel lanes (Ma: Column 10 lines 22-36, “Turning to FIG. 2D, at operation 232, example process 200 may comprise determining that sensor data indicates an absence of a safety object associated with a ( closed) lane for a duration of time that meets or exceeds a threshold duration, according to any of the techniques discussed herein. For example, example process 200 may comprise tracking a duration of time that no new object detections are received that identify an object and/or a safety object in a closed lane. That duration of time may be reset any time a new object detection identifies such an object (example process 200 may continue to operation 230 in such an instance). For example, the status associated with a closed lane may thereby be set to an open lane status shortly after an autonomous vehicle clears a last traffic cone, as depicted in FIG. 2D.”. The cited passage clearly shows that the method determines an end of the lane closure.);
control the autonomous vehicle to travel in one of the one or more forward travel lanes at the end of the closure (Ma: Column 7 lines 1-32, “The planner 112 may use the perception data, including the lane closed/open states discussed herein, to determine one or more trajectories to control the autonomous vehicle 102 to traverse a path or route and/or otherwise control operation of the autonomous vehicle 102, though any such operation may be performed in various other components. For example, the planner 112 may determine a route for the autonomous vehicle 102 from a first location to a second location; generate, substantially simultaneously, a plurality of potential trajectories for controlling motion of the autonomous vehicle 102 in accordance with a receding horizon technique ( e.g., 1 micro-second, half a second, every 10 seconds, and the like) and based at least in part on the lane states 130 (which may be associated with the map 116 and/or state tracker 118) to traverse the route ( e.g., in order to avoid any of the detected objects and/or to avoid operating in a closed lane); and select one of the potential trajectories as a trajectory 136 of the autonomous vehicle 102 that may be used to generate a drive control signal that may be transmitted to drive components of the autonomous vehicle 102.”. The system taught in Ma is clearly configured to control the vehicle to travel in the open travel lanes.).
Regarding claim 11, Ma in view of Beller teaches further comprising: determine the one or more forward travel lanes includes a plurality of forward travel lanes (Ma: Column 6 lines 9-23, “In some examples, if at least one of the object detections generated by the perception engine 114 indicates a classification associated with a safety object (i.e., a "safety class"), the perception engine 114 may trigger a lane closure analysis. In an additional or alternate example, the autonomous vehicle 102 may analyze at least a current lane 122; any adjacent lane(s), such as adjacent lane 124; and/or any other lane to determine whether the lane is open or closed. For example, the perception engine 114 may continuously or periodically conduct the lane closure analysis described herein, regardless of whether a safety object has been detected, and/or if a safety object is detected the perception engine 114 may trigger a lane analysis in addition to a periodic lane analysis.”. As can be seen in the cited passage, the perception engine is configured to identify the travel lanes of the road the vehicle is traveling.); and
when the barrier indicates closure of less than all of the plurality of forward travel lanes, control the autonomous vehicle to travel in an open travel lane of the plurality of forward travel lanes (Ma: Column 7 lines 1 -32, “In the depicted example, planner may generate and/or select trajectory 136 based at least in part on a closed lane status 134 associated with the current lane 122. Trajectory 136 may comprise instructions for actuating a drive system to cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to merge into an adjacent lane 124 (which may be associated with a same direction of travel and an open lane status 132).”. The cited passage clearly teaches controlling the vehicle to travel in an open travel lane when not all of the travel lanes are closed.).
Regarding claim 12, Ma in view of Beller teaches wherein determining the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle comprises determining a road shoulder is adequate for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle (Beller: Column 13 lines 23-35, “In various examples, the action may include modifying a vehicle trajectory to cause the vehicle 404 to travel a second path (e.g., different path). The second path may include a vehicle path 416 that circumnavigates the object(s) 406. The second path and/or associated vehicle trajectory may result in the vehicle 404 continuing progress toward the destination while avoiding the object(s) 406 by at least a minimum safe distance. The vehicle trajectory and/or second path may be associated with a position of the vehicle 404 in the lane 418, a lane change (e.g., into an adjacent lane 426), and/or adjusting a position of the vehicle 404 at least partially outside the lane 418 (e.g., onto a shoulder, into a bike lane, or the like) to safely navigate around the object(s) 406.”, Column 13 lines 36-50, “In various examples, the action may include adjusting a position in a lane 418 to navigate around the object(s) 406. In some examples, the planning component 422 may determine whether the vehicle 404 is able to proceed around the object(s) 406 in the lane 418 (e.g., whether adjusting a position is a viable action). In such examples, the planning component 422 may determine the distance (D) between the object(s) 406 and/or the bounding box 420 associated therewith and a lane marker 424 (e.g., road marking delineating the edge of the lane, etc.). The planning component 422 may determine whether the distance (D) is equal to or greater than a width of the vehicle 404 and/or a safety buffer (e.g., minimum safe distance) from the object(s) 406. As discussed above, the minimum safe distance may be based on the classification 414 associated with the object(s) 406.”. The cited passages teach that the vehicle system is configured to determine a trajectory to avoid a detected object and determine if the trajectory allows the vehicle to proceed around the detected object. As can clearly be seen the new trajectory can allow the vehicle to enter the shoulder of the road.).
Regarding claim 14, Ma in view of Beller teaches wherein determining the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle comprises determining a candidate alternative travel path includes a paved portion satisfying a threshold width (Beller: Column 13 lines 23-35, “In various examples, the action may include modifying a vehicle trajectory to cause the vehicle 404 to travel a second path (e.g., different path). The second path may include a vehicle path 416 that circumnavigates the object(s) 406. The second path and/or associated vehicle trajectory may result in the vehicle 404 continuing progress toward the destination while avoiding the object(s) 406 by at least a minimum safe distance. The vehicle trajectory and/or second path may be associated with a position of the vehicle 404 in the lane 418, a lane change (e.g., into an adjacent lane 426), and/or adjusting a position of the vehicle 404 at least partially outside the lane 418 (e.g., onto a shoulder, into a bike lane, or the like) to safely navigate around the object(s) 406.”, Column 13 lines 36-50, “In various examples, the action may include adjusting a position in a lane 418 to navigate around the object(s) 406. In some examples, the planning component 422 may determine whether the vehicle 404 is able to proceed around the object(s) 406 in the lane 418 (e.g., whether adjusting a position is a viable action). In such examples, the planning component 422 may determine the distance (D) between the object(s) 406 and/or the bounding box 420 associated therewith and a lane marker 424 (e.g., road marking delineating the edge of the lane, etc.). The planning component 422 may determine whether the distance (D) is equal to or greater than a width of the vehicle 404 and/or a safety buffer (e.g., minimum safe distance) from the object(s) 406. As discussed above, the minimum safe distance may be based on the classification 414 associated with the object(s) 406.”. The cited passages teach that the vehicle system is configured to determine a trajectory to avoid a detected object and determine if the trajectory allows the vehicle to proceed around the detected object. Furthermore, the system is configured to determine if the distance from the object to a marker is larger than a width of the vehicle or a safety buffer. This clearly is a determination of if the travel path satisfies a width threshold. Additionally, the travel path of the vehicle is restricted to an adjacent lane or a shoulder/bike lane of the road, all of which are clearly paved portions.).
Regarding claim 15, Ma teaches an autonomous vehicle comprising (Ma: Column 13 lines 53-67, “FIG. 5 illustrates a block diagram of an example system that implements the techniques discussed herein. In some instances, the system 500 may include a vehicle 502, which may represent the autonomous vehicle 102 in FIG. 1.”):
one or more sensors (Ma: Column 14 lines 4-20, “In some instances, the sensor(s) 506 may include lidar sensors, radar sensors, ultrasonic transducers, sonar sensors, location sensors (e.g., global positioning system (GPS), compass), inertial sensors ( e.g., inertial measurement units (IMUs), accelerometers, magnetometers, gyroscopes), image sensors (e.g., red-green-blue (RGB), infrared (IR), intensity, depth, time of flight cameras), microphones, wheel encoders, environment sensors (e.g., thermometer, hygrometer, light sensors, pressure sensors), etc. The sensor(s) 506 may include multiple instances of each of these or other types of sensors. For instance, the radar sensors may include individual radar sensors located at the comers, front, back, sides, and/or top of the vehicle 502. As another example, the cameras may include multiple cameras disposed at various locations about the exterior and/or interior of the vehicle 502. The sensor(s) 506 may provide input to the vehicle computing device(s) 504 and/or to computing device(s) 514.”); and
a path determination system comprising a processor and a memory, the processor configured to (Ma: Figure 5 computing device 504, Column 15 lines 23-50, “Additionally, the drive component(s) 512 may include a drive component controller which may receive and preprocess data from the sensor(s) and to control operation of the various vehicle systems. In some instances, the drive component controller may include one or more processors and memory communicatively coupled with the one or more processors. The memory may store one or more components to perform various functionalities of the drive component(s) 512.”, Column 15 lines 51-65, “The vehicle computing device(s) 504 may include processor(s) 518 and memory 520 communicatively coupled with the one or more processors 518. Computing device(s) 514 may also include processor(s) 522, and/or memory 524. The processor(s) 518 and/or 522 may be any suitable processor capable of executing instructions to process data and perform operations as described herein.”):
receive sensor data from the one or more sensors (Ma: Column 4 lines 39-52, “According to the techniques discussed herein, the autonomous vehicle 102 may receive sensor data from sensor(s) 104 of the autonomous vehicle 102. For example, the sensor(s) 104 may include a location sensor (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS) sensor), an inertia sensor (e.g., an accelerometer sensor, a gyroscope sensor, etc.), a magnetic field sensor (e.g., a compass), a position/velocity/acceleration sensor (e.g., a speedometer, a drive system sensor), a depth position sensor ( e.g., a lidar sensor, a radar sensor, a sonar sensor, a time of flight (ToF) camera, a depth camera), an image sensor (e.g., a visible light spectrum camera, a depth camera, an infrared camera), an audio sensor (e.g., a microphone), and/or environmental sensor (e.g., a barometer, a hygrometer, etc.).”);
identify, based on the sensor data, (i) one or more forward travel lanes and (ii) one or more objects (Ma: Column 5 lines 39-48, “The perception engine 114 may receive sensor data from sensor( s) 104 and may determine perception data therefrom. For example, perception engine 114 may include one or more machine-learned (ML) models and/or other computer executable instructions for detecting, identifying, segmenting, classifying, and/or tracking objects from sensor data collected from the environment of the autonomous vehicle 102. In some examples, the perception engine 114 may comprise a component for detecting whether a lane is open or closed.”, Column 5 lines 49-62, “In the illustrated example scenario 100, autonomous vehicle 102 may receive sensor data from one or more of the sensor(s) 104 as the autonomous vehicle 102 approaches a collection of traffic cones 120. Traffic cones 120 may be one example of safety objects associated with a lane closure. The perception engine 114 may comprise one or more ML models for detecting, based at least in part on the sensor data, object(s) in the environment surrounding the autonomous vehicle 102 and/or classifying the object(s). For example, the autonomous vehicle 102 may receive an image and/or point cloud data (e.g., data from lidar, radar, sonar), which the autonomous vehicle 102 may determine is associated with one or more safety objects (e.g., by determining an object detection is associated with a safety class).”, Column 6 lines 9-23, “In some examples, if at least one of the object detections generated by the perception engine 114 indicates a classification associated with a safety object (i.e., a "safety class"), the perception engine 114 may trigger a lane closure analysis. In an additional or alternate example, the autonomous vehicle 102 may analyze at least a current lane 122; any adjacent lane(s), such as adjacent lane 124; and/or any other lane to determine whether the lane is open or closed. For example, the perception engine 114 may continuously or periodically conduct the lane closure analysis described herein, regardless of whether a safety object has been detected, and/or if a safety object is detected the perception engine 114 may trigger a lane analysis in addition to a periodic lane analysis.”. As can be seen from the cited passages, the system is clearly configured to detect one or more objects based the sensor data. Additionally, as can be seen in Column 6 lines 9-23, the perception engine is configured to identify the travel lanes of the road the vehicle is traveling.);
determine the one or more objects form a barrier indicating closure of all of the one or more forward travel lanes (Ma: Column 9 lines 9-24, “At operation 220, example process 200 may comprise determining whether a distance between a dilated object detection another object detection, another dilated object detection, and/or an extent of a lane and/or roadway meets or exceeds a distance threshold, according to any of the techniques discussed herein. In some examples, the distance threshold may correspond to a width and/or length of the autonomous vehicle ( e.g., depending on the dimension in which the distance was measured-in the depicted example, the distance threshold may be based at least in part on a width of the autonomous vehicle) and/or a tolerance. Operation 220 may functionally determine whether the autonomous vehicle would fit between dilated object detections (along a longitudinal or lateral axis of the vehicle, for example). If the distance is less than the distance threshold, example process 200 may continue to operation 222.”, Column 9 lines 25-44, “At operation 222, example process 200 may comprise determining a closed status indicating that the lane is closed, according to any of the techniques discussed herein. In some examples, operation 222 may comprise any method of setting and/or saving a state in association with the analyzed lane such as, for example, flipping a flag in a register, transitioning a state machine to a state to identify the lane as being closed. For example, FIG. 2A depicts lane states 224, which comprise identifying an analyzed lane as being closed. In some instances, the status may be associated with a portion of a lane based at least in part on a dilated object detection and/or object detection closest to the autonomous vehicle.”. The cited passages teach determining if the detected objects are spaced in such a way that the vehicle can fit between them and if the space between the objects ca not allow the vehicle to pass, setting the lane to a closed status. This is clearly a method of determining if the objects create a blockage or barrier on the road.);
when the barrier indicates closure of all of the one or more forward travel lanes, determine an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle (Ma: Column 7 lines 1-32, “The planner 112 may use the perception data, including the lane closed/open states discussed herein, to determine one or more trajectories to control the autonomous vehicle 102 to traverse a path or route and/or otherwise control operation of the autonomous vehicle 102, though any such operation may be performed in various other components. For example, the planner 112 may determine a route for the autonomous vehicle 102 from a first location to a second location; generate, substantially simultaneously, a plurality of potential trajectories for controlling motion of the autonomous vehicle 102 in accordance with a receding horizon technique ( e.g., 1 micro-second, half a second, every 10 seconds, and the like) and based at least in part on the lane states 130 (which may be associated with the map 116 and/or state tracker 118) to traverse the route ( e.g., in order to avoid any of the detected objects and/or to avoid operating in a closed lane); and select one of the potential trajectories as a trajectory 136 of the autonomous vehicle 102 that may be used to generate a drive control signal that may be transmitted to drive components of the autonomous vehicle 102.”. As can clearly be seen from the cited passage, the system is configured to determine a trajectory for the vehicle based on the lane stat (i.e. whether or not the lane is closed).),
the alternative travel path having boundaries defined at least in part by the one or more objects and deviating at least in part from the one or more travel lanes (Ma: Figures 3 and 4, Column 11 line 60 – Column 12 line 3, “FIG. 3 illustrates an aerial view of an example scenario 300 in which a group of safety objects designate a new lane that is not associated with traditional lane markings. The example scenario 300 in FIG. 3 depicts a shifted taper, although many other lane modifications exist such as, for example, a flagging taper, shoulder taper, merging taper, one-lane two-way traffic taper, and the like. In some examples, the techniques described herein may determine that all available lanes ( e.g., lanes associated with a same direction of travel as the vehicle) are closed in a scenario like example scenario 300.”, Column 12 lines 4-36, “Example scenario 300 includes a roadway having two directions of traffic, direction of traffic 302 and direction of traffic 304, where each direction of traffic has two lanes associated therewith. Direction of traffic 304 includes two traditional lanes (left traditional lane 306 and right traditional lane 308), as demarcated according to the hashed lane markers and bounded by the double (yellow) line 310 and a roadway extent 312. For the sake of example, it is assumed that the autonomous vehicle 102 has already determined that the right traditional lane 308 is closed (e.g., the autonomous vehicle may have stored and/or maintained a closed status in association with the right traditional lane 308) based at least in part on a collection of safety objects in the roadway (e.g., unlabeled due to their number and represented as circles). However, the autonomous vehicle 102, upon coming upon the shifted taper, may determine that the left traditional lane 306 is closed (e.g., due to the safety objects in that lane) and/or that a lane 314 associated with the (opposite) direction of traffic 302 is unavailable since the direction of traffic 302 is opposite direction of traffic 304 with which the autonomous vehicle 102 is associated and/or because of detecting the double line 314. In other words, by applying the techniques discussed in regard to FIG. 2, the autonomous vehicle 102 may determine that all the (traditional) lane(s) associated with a direction of traffic are blocked (e.g., no traditional lane has an opening wide enough for an autonomous vehicle 102 to pass through according to the techniques discussed above in regard to FIG. 2). The autonomous vehicle 102 may be equipped with additional or alternative techniques for determining an alternative lane shape and/or an open/closed status associated therewith. The alternative lane shape may eschew traditional lane markings in some instances.” Column 12 line 63 – Column 13 line 4, “The autonomous vehicle 102 may generate such a shape to have a contiguous boundary and such that there is at least one lane having a minimum width. The minimum width may be a distance that is greater than the threshold distance (so that the shape generated may avoid including safety objects of an opposite side of the tapered lane). In some examples, an ML model may be trained to determine such a shape ( e.g., based at least in part on a classification task, clustering task, and/or the like).” Column 13 lines 5-16, “In some examples, the autonomous vehicle 102 may repeat this for a second set of safety objects (e.g., the leftward safety objects) associated with a second closed lane status and/or based at least in part on an open lane status. In other words, the autonomous vehicle 102 may inversely determine a shape that positively identifies an open lane, based at least in part on an open lane status and one or more safety objects. In some examples, the autonomous vehicle may detect a safety sign that symbolizes a taper, lane merge, and/or other traffic modification and may determine the alternative lane shape based at least in part on the symbols on the safety sign.”. The cited passage clearly shows that the alternate travel path is defined by the one or more object and deviates at least in part from the one or more forward travel lanes.);
control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path (Ma: Column 7 lines 1 -32, “In the depicted example, planner may generate and/or select trajectory 136 based at least in part on a closed lane status 134 associated with the current lane 122. Trajectory 136 may comprise instructions for actuating a drive system to cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to merge into an adjacent lane 124 (which may be associated with a same direction of travel and an open lane status 132).”).
Ma does not teach determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and
in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path.
Beller, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle (Beller: Figure 4, Column 13 lines 23-35, “In various examples, the action may include modifying a vehicle trajectory to cause the vehicle 404 to travel a second path (e.g., different path). The second path may include a vehicle path 416 that circumnavigates the object(s) 406. The second path and/or associated vehicle trajectory may result in the vehicle 404 continuing progress toward the destination while avoiding the object(s) 406 by at least a minimum safe distance. The vehicle trajectory and/or second path may be associated with a position of the vehicle 404 in the lane 418, a lane change (e.g., into an adjacent lane 426), and/or adjusting a position of the vehicle 404 at least partially outside the lane 418 (e.g., onto a shoulder, into a bike lane, or the like) to safely navigate around the object(s) 406.”, Column 13 lines 36-50, “In various examples, the action may include adjusting a position in a lane 418 to navigate around the object(s) 406. In some examples, the planning component 422 may determine whether the vehicle 404 is able to proceed around the object(s) 406 in the lane 418 (e.g., whether adjusting a position is a viable action). In such examples, the planning component 422 may determine the distance (D) between the object(s) 406 and/or the bounding box 420 associated therewith and a lane marker 424 (e.g., road marking delineating the edge of the lane, etc.). The planning component 422 may determine whether the distance (D) is equal to or greater than a width of the vehicle 404 and/or a safety buffer (e.g., minimum safe distance) from the object(s) 406. As discussed above, the minimum safe distance may be based on the classification 414 associated with the object(s) 406.”. The cited passages teach that the vehicle system is configured to determine a trajectory to avoid a detected object and determine if the trajectory allows the vehicle to proceed around the detected object. Furthermore, the system is configured to determine if the distance from the object to a marker is larger than a width of the vehicle or a safety buffer. This clearly is a determination of if the travel path satisfies a width sized for the vehicle. Additionally, the travel path of the vehicle is restricted to an adjacent lane or a shoulder/bike lane of the road, all of which are clearly paved portions.); and
in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path (Beller: Figure 4, Column 13 lines 23-35, “In various examples, the action may include modifying a vehicle trajectory to cause the vehicle 404 to travel a second path (e.g., different path). The second path may include a vehicle path 416 that circumnavigates the object(s) 406. The second path and/or associated vehicle trajectory may result in the vehicle 404 continuing progress toward the destination while avoiding the object(s) 406 by at least a minimum safe distance. The vehicle trajectory and/or second path may be associated with a position of the vehicle 404 in the lane 418, a lane change (e.g., into an adjacent lane 426), and/or adjusting a position of the vehicle 404 at least partially outside the lane 418 (e.g., onto a shoulder, into a bike lane, or the like) to safely navigate around the object(s) 406.”, Column 13 lines 36-50, “In various examples, the action may include adjusting a position in a lane 418 to navigate around the object(s) 406. In some examples, the planning component 422 may determine whether the vehicle 404 is able to proceed around the object(s) 406 in the lane 418 (e.g., whether adjusting a position is a viable action). In such examples, the planning component 422 may determine the distance (D) between the object(s) 406 and/or the bounding box 420 associated therewith and a lane marker 424 (e.g., road marking delineating the edge of the lane, etc.). The planning component 422 may determine whether the distance (D) is equal to or greater than a width of the vehicle 404 and/or a safety buffer (e.g., minimum safe distance) from the object(s) 406. As discussed above, the minimum safe distance may be based on the classification 414 associated with the object(s) 406.”. The cited passages clearly show that is the distance between the objects and the lane markers is sufficiently sized for the width of the vehicle, the vehicle will travel along the alternate path.).
Ma teaches an autonomous vehicle. Ma does not teach determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path. Beller teaches determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the autonomous vehicle taught in Ma with determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path taught in Beller. Furthermore, the autonomous vehicle taught in Ma is already configured to determine if the space between detected objects along a vehicles path meet a width threshold such that the vehicle can pass through them and controls the vehicle to travel the alternat path, so modifying the autonomous vehicle such that it determines if the alternated travel path meets a width threshold using the method taught in Beller would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of an autonomous vehicle configured to determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the autonomous vehicle taught in Ma with determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle; and in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path taught in Beller with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Ma in view of Beller teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: while controlling the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path, identify an end of the closure of all of the one or more forward travel lanes (Ma: Column 10 lines 22-36, “Turning to FIG. 2D, at operation 232, example process 200 may comprise determining that sensor data indicates an absence of a safety object associated with a ( closed) lane for a duration of time that meets or exceeds a threshold duration, according to any of the techniques discussed herein. For example, example process 200 may comprise tracking a duration of time that no new object detections are received that identify an object and/or a safety object in a closed lane. That duration of time may be reset any time a new object detection identifies such an object (example process 200 may continue to operation 230 in such an instance). For example, the status associated with a closed lane may thereby be set to an open lane status shortly after an autonomous vehicle clears a last traffic cone, as depicted in FIG. 2D.”. The cited passage clearly shows that the method determines an end of the lane closure.);
control the autonomous vehicle to travel in one of the one or more forward travel lanes at the end of the closure (Ma: Column 7 lines 1-32, “The planner 112 may use the perception data, including the lane closed/open states discussed herein, to determine one or more trajectories to control the autonomous vehicle 102 to traverse a path or route and/or otherwise control operation of the autonomous vehicle 102, though any such operation may be performed in various other components. For example, the planner 112 may determine a route for the autonomous vehicle 102 from a first location to a second location; generate, substantially simultaneously, a plurality of potential trajectories for controlling motion of the autonomous vehicle 102 in accordance with a receding horizon technique ( e.g., 1 micro-second, half a second, every 10 seconds, and the like) and based at least in part on the lane states 130 (which may be associated with the map 116 and/or state tracker 118) to traverse the route ( e.g., in order to avoid any of the detected objects and/or to avoid operating in a closed lane); and select one of the potential trajectories as a trajectory 136 of the autonomous vehicle 102 that may be used to generate a drive control signal that may be transmitted to drive components of the autonomous vehicle 102.”. The system taught in Ma is clearly configured to control the vehicle to travel in the open travel lanes.).
Regarding claim 18, Ma in view of Beller teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: determine the one or more forward travel lanes includes a plurality of forward travel lanes (Ma: Column 6 lines 9-23, “In some examples, if at least one of the object detections generated by the perception engine 114 indicates a classification associated with a safety object (i.e., a "safety class"), the perception engine 114 may trigger a lane closure analysis. In an additional or alternate example, the autonomous vehicle 102 may analyze at least a current lane 122; any adjacent lane(s), such as adjacent lane 124; and/or any other lane to determine whether the lane is open or closed. For example, the perception engine 114 may continuously or periodically conduct the lane closure analysis described herein, regardless of whether a safety object has been detected, and/or if a safety object is detected the perception engine 114 may trigger a lane analysis in addition to a periodic lane analysis.”. As can be seen in the cited passage, the perception engine is configured to identify the travel lanes of the road the vehicle is traveling.); and
when the barrier indicates closure of less than all of the plurality of forward travel lanes, control the autonomous vehicle to travel in an open travel lane of the plurality of forward travel lanes (Ma: Column 7 lines 1 -32, “In the depicted example, planner may generate and/or select trajectory 136 based at least in part on a closed lane status 134 associated with the current lane 122. Trajectory 136 may comprise instructions for actuating a drive system to cause the autonomous vehicle 102 to merge into an adjacent lane 124 (which may be associated with a same direction of travel and an open lane status 132).”. The cited passage clearly teaches controlling the vehicle to travel in an open travel lane when not all of the travel lanes are closed.).
Regarding claim 19, Ma in view of Beller teaches wherein to determine the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle, the processor is configured to determine a road shoulder is adequate for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle (Beller: Column 13 lines 23-35, “In various examples, the action may include modifying a vehicle trajectory to cause the vehicle 404 to travel a second path (e.g., different path). The second path may include a vehicle path 416 that circumnavigates the object(s) 406. The second path and/or associated vehicle trajectory may result in the vehicle 404 continuing progress toward the destination while avoiding the object(s) 406 by at least a minimum safe distance. The vehicle trajectory and/or second path may be associated with a position of the vehicle 404 in the lane 418, a lane change (e.g., into an adjacent lane 426), and/or adjusting a position of the vehicle 404 at least partially outside the lane 418 (e.g., onto a shoulder, into a bike lane, or the like) to safely navigate around the object(s) 406.”, Column 13 lines 36-50, “In various examples, the action may include adjusting a position in a lane 418 to navigate around the object(s) 406. In some examples, the planning component 422 may determine whether the vehicle 404 is able to proceed around the object(s) 406 in the lane 418 (e.g., whether adjusting a position is a viable action). In such examples, the planning component 422 may determine the distance (D) between the object(s) 406 and/or the bounding box 420 associated therewith and a lane marker 424 (e.g., road marking delineating the edge of the lane, etc.). The planning component 422 may determine whether the distance (D) is equal to or greater than a width of the vehicle 404 and/or a safety buffer (e.g., minimum safe distance) from the object(s) 406. As discussed above, the minimum safe distance may be based on the classification 414 associated with the object(s) 406.”. The cited passages teach that the vehicle system is configured to determine a trajectory to avoid a detected object and determine if the trajectory allows the vehicle to proceed around the detected object. As can clearly be seen the new trajectory can allow the vehicle to enter the shoulder of the road.).
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11100339 B2 ("Ma") in view of US 11738772 B1 ("Beller") in further view of 11458993 B2 ("Brown").
Regarding claim 2, Ma in view of Beller does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to control the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present.
Brown, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to control the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present (Brown: Column 19 lines 42-53, “Based on comparing the sensor data 616a with the second portion of the map data 1510, the control subsystem 1400 determines whether the road 600 is closed ahead by identifying one or more objects 604 associated with a road closure 602 and that are not among the expected objects in the second portion of the map data 1510. In other words, the control subsystem 1400 determines the road 600 is closed if it detects the presence of one or more objects 604, such as a road closed ahead sign 604-1, one or more stopped vehicles 604-2, an object 604-3 used to close the road 600, e.g., a traffic cone, a traffic barrier, a traffic barrel, a traffic barricade tape, a delineator, and/or the like.”, Column 20 lines 7-21, “In one embodiment, once the control subsystem 1400 of the lead AV 1602-1 determines that the road 600 is closed, it may update the driving instructions 1518 of the lead AV 1602-1, such that the lead AV 1602-1 stops at a safe location behind the road closure 602 (and the vehicles 604-2). For example, the lead AV 1602-1 may proceed toward the road closure 602 and stop at a safe location behind the vehicles 604-2 while keeping a safe distance from them (e.g., 20 feet behind the stopped vehicle 604-2a ). In cases where there are no vehicles 604-2, the lead AV 1602-1 may stop at a safe location behind the road closure 602 ( e.g., 20 feet behind the road closure 602). In this way, if the road 600 is opened (i.e., the road closure 602 is removed, e.g., objects as a result of car crash are removed), the lead AV 1602-1 may resume its autonomous driving.”. The cited passages teach a method of stopping an autonomous vehicle when all lanes of the road the vehicle is travelling are closed.).
Ma in view of Beller teaches a path determination system. Ma in view of Beller does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to control the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present. Brown teaches wherein the processor is further configured to control the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the path determination system taught in Ma in view of Beller with wherein the processor is further configured to control the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present taught in Brown. Furthermore, the path determination system taught in Ma in view of Beller is already configured to control the vehicle to follow a trajectory determined based on the presence of a road closure, so modifying the system to stop the vehicle when no alternate paths are available would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a path determination system wherein the processor is further configured to control the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the path determination system taught in Ma in view of Beller with wherein the processor is further configured to control the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present taught in Brown with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Ma in view of Beller does not teach further comprising the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present.
Brown, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present (Brown: Column 19 lines 42-53, “Based on comparing the sensor data 616a with the second portion of the map data 1510, the control subsystem 1400 determines whether the road 600 is closed ahead by identifying one or more objects 604 associated with a road closure 602 and that are not among the expected objects in the second portion of the map data 1510. In other words, the control subsystem 1400 determines the road 600 is closed if it detects the presence of one or more objects 604, such as a road closed ahead sign 604-1, one or more stopped vehicles 604-2, an object 604-3 used to close the road 600, e.g., a traffic cone, a traffic barrier, a traffic barrel, a traffic barricade tape, a delineator, and/or the like.”, Column 20 lines 7-21, “In one embodiment, once the control subsystem 1400 of the lead AV 1602-1 determines that the road 600 is closed, it may update the driving instructions 1518 of the lead AV 1602-1, such that the lead AV 1602-1 stops at a safe location behind the road closure 602 (and the vehicles 604-2). For example, the lead AV 1602-1 may proceed toward the road closure 602 and stop at a safe location behind the vehicles 604-2 while keeping a safe distance from them (e.g., 20 feet behind the stopped vehicle 604-2a ). In cases where there are no vehicles 604-2, the lead AV 1602-1 may stop at a safe location behind the road closure 602 ( e.g., 20 feet behind the road closure 602). In this way, if the road 600 is opened (i.e., the road closure 602 is removed, e.g., objects as a result of car crash are removed), the lead AV 1602-1 may resume its autonomous driving.”. The cited passages teach a method of stopping an autonomous vehicle when all lanes of the road the vehicle is travelling are closed.).
Ma in view of Beller teaches a path determination method. Ma in view of Beller does not teach further comprising the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present. Brown teaches further comprising the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the path determination method taught in Ma in view of Beller with further comprising the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present taught in Brown. Furthermore, the path determination method taught in Ma in view of Beller is already configured to control the vehicle to follow a trajectory determined based on the presence of a road closure, so modifying the method to stop the vehicle when no alternate paths are available would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a path determination method further comprising the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the path determination method taught in Ma in view of Beller with further comprising the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present taught in Brown with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Ma in view of Beller does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to control the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present.
Brown, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to control the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present (Brown: Column 19 lines 42-53, “Based on comparing the sensor data 616a with the second portion of the map data 1510, the control subsystem 1400 determines whether the road 600 is closed ahead by identifying one or more objects 604 associated with a road closure 602 and that are not among the expected objects in the second portion of the map data 1510. In other words, the control subsystem 1400 determines the road 600 is closed if it detects the presence of one or more objects 604, such as a road closed ahead sign 604-1, one or more stopped vehicles 604-2, an object 604-3 used to close the road 600, e.g., a traffic cone, a traffic barrier, a traffic barrel, a traffic barricade tape, a delineator, and/or the like.”, Column 20 lines 7-21, “In one embodiment, once the control subsystem 1400 of the lead AV 1602-1 determines that the road 600 is closed, it may update the driving instructions 1518 of the lead AV 1602-1, such that the lead AV 1602-1 stops at a safe location behind the road closure 602 (and the vehicles 604-2). For example, the lead AV 1602-1 may proceed toward the road closure 602 and stop at a safe location behind the vehicles 604-2 while keeping a safe distance from them (e.g., 20 feet behind the stopped vehicle 604-2a ). In cases where there are no vehicles 604-2, the lead AV 1602-1 may stop at a safe location behind the road closure 602 ( e.g., 20 feet behind the road closure 602). In this way, if the road 600 is opened (i.e., the road closure 602 is removed, e.g., objects as a result of car crash are removed), the lead AV 1602-1 may resume its autonomous driving.”. The cited passages teach a method of stopping an autonomous vehicle when all lanes of the road the vehicle is travelling are closed.).
Ma in view of Beller teaches an autonomous vehicle. Ma in view of Beller does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to control the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present. Brown teaches wherein the processor is further configured to control the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the autonomous vehicle taught in Ma in view of Beller with wherein the processor is further configured to control the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present taught in Brown. Furthermore, the autonomous vehicle taught in Ma in view of Beller is already configured to control the vehicle to follow a trajectory determined based on the presence of a road closure, so modifying the autonomous vehicle to stop the vehicle when no alternate paths are available would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of an autonomous vehicle wherein the processor is further configured to control the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the autonomous vehicle taught in Ma in view of Beller with wherein the processor is further configured to control the autonomous vehicle to stop when an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle is not present taught in Brown with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11100339 B2 ("Ma") in view of US 11738772 B1 ("Beller") in further view of KR 20180046705 A ("Lee").
Regarding claim 6, Ma in view of Beller teaches determine the travel path of the one or more other vehicles is adequate for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle (Beller: Column 13 lines 36-50, “In various examples, the action may include adjusting a position in a lane 418 to navigate around the object(s) 406. In some examples, the planning component 422 may determine whether the vehicle 404 is able to proceed around the object(s) 406 in the lane 418 (e.g., whether adjusting a position is a viable action). In such examples, the planning component 422 may determine the distance (D) between the object(s) 406 and/or the bounding box 420 associated therewith and a lane marker 424 (e.g., road marking delineating the edge of the lane, etc.). The planning component 422 may determine whether the distance (D) is equal to or greater than a width of the vehicle 404 and/or a safety buffer (e.g., minimum safe distance) from the object(s) 406. As discussed above, the minimum safe distance may be based on the classification 414 associated with the object(s) 406.”. The cited passages teach that the vehicle system is configured to determine a trajectory to avoid a detected object and determine if the trajectory allows the vehicle to proceed around the detected object.).
Ma in view of Beller does not teach wherein to determine the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle, the processor is configured to: identify a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein to determine the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle, the processor is configured to: identify a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle (Lee: ¶ 0243, “For example, the control unit 170 can determine that the vehicle running on the front side of the vehicle 100 (hereinafter referred to as the forward vehicle) avoids the obstacle and travels. In this case, the control section 170 can provide a signal to the vehicle drive apparatus 600 so that the vehicle 100 follows the preceding vehicle.”, ¶ 0262, “For example, the determination unit 172 can determine the obstacle avoidance driving of the preceding vehicle.”. The cited passages clearly teach determining the travel path of a preceding vehicle.).
Ma in view of Beller teaches a path determination system. Ma in view of Beller does not teach wherein to determine the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle, the processor is configured to: identify a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle. Lee teaches wherein to determine the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle, the processor is configured to: identify a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the path determination system taught in Ma in view of Beller with wherein to determine the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle, the processor is configured to: identify a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle taught in Lee. Furthermore, the path determination system is already configured to detect and determine objects through received sensor data, so modifying this to include another data regarding a preceding vehicle would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a path determination system wherein to determine the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle, the processor is configured to: identify a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the path determination system taught in Ma in view of Beller with wherein to determine the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle, the processor is configured to: identify a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle taught in Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Ma in view of Beller teaches determining the travel path of the one or more other vehicles is adequate for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle (Beller: Column 13 lines 36-50, “In various examples, the action may include adjusting a position in a lane 418 to navigate around the object(s) 406. In some examples, the planning component 422 may determine whether the vehicle 404 is able to proceed around the object(s) 406 in the lane 418 (e.g., whether adjusting a position is a viable action). In such examples, the planning component 422 may determine the distance (D) between the object(s) 406 and/or the bounding box 420 associated therewith and a lane marker 424 (e.g., road marking delineating the edge of the lane, etc.). The planning component 422 may determine whether the distance (D) is equal to or greater than a width of the vehicle 404 and/or a safety buffer (e.g., minimum safe distance) from the object(s) 406. As discussed above, the minimum safe distance may be based on the classification 414 associated with the object(s) 406.”. The cited passages teach that the vehicle system is configured to determine a trajectory to avoid a detected object and determine if the trajectory allows the vehicle to proceed around the detected object.).
Ma in view of Beller does not teach wherein determining the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle comprises: identifying a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein determining the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle comprises: identifying a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle (Lee: ¶ 0243, “For example, the control unit 170 can determine that the vehicle running on the front side of the vehicle 100 (hereinafter referred to as the forward vehicle) avoids the obstacle and travels. In this case, the control section 170 can provide a signal to the vehicle drive apparatus 600 so that the vehicle 100 follows the preceding vehicle.”, ¶ 0262, “For example, the determination unit 172 can determine the obstacle avoidance driving of the preceding vehicle.”. The cited passages clearly teach determining the travel path of a preceding vehicle.).
Ma in view of Beller teaches a path determination method. Ma in view of Beller does not teach wherein determining the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle comprises: identifying a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle. Lee teaches wherein determining the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle comprises: identifying a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the path determination method taught in Ma in view of Beller with wherein determining the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle comprises: identifying a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle taught in Lee. Furthermore, the path determination method is already configured to detect and determine objects through received sensor data, so modifying this to include another data regarding a preceding vehicle would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a path determination wherein determining the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle comprises: identifying a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the path determination method taught in Ma in view of Beller with wherein determining the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle comprises: identifying a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle taught in Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 20, Ma in view of Beller teaches determine the travel path of the one or more other vehicles is adequate for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle (Beller: Column 13 lines 36-50, “In various examples, the action may include adjusting a position in a lane 418 to navigate around the object(s) 406. In some examples, the planning component 422 may determine whether the vehicle 404 is able to proceed around the object(s) 406 in the lane 418 (e.g., whether adjusting a position is a viable action). In such examples, the planning component 422 may determine the distance (D) between the object(s) 406 and/or the bounding box 420 associated therewith and a lane marker 424 (e.g., road marking delineating the edge of the lane, etc.). The planning component 422 may determine whether the distance (D) is equal to or greater than a width of the vehicle 404 and/or a safety buffer (e.g., minimum safe distance) from the object(s) 406. As discussed above, the minimum safe distance may be based on the classification 414 associated with the object(s) 406.”. The cited passages teach that the vehicle system is configured to determine a trajectory to avoid a detected object and determine if the trajectory allows the vehicle to proceed around the detected object.).
Ma in view of Beller does not teach wherein to determine the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle, the processor is configured to: identify a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein to determine the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle, the processor is configured to: identify a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle (Lee: ¶ 0243, “For example, the control unit 170 can determine that the vehicle running on the front side of the vehicle 100 (hereinafter referred to as the forward vehicle) avoids the obstacle and travels. In this case, the control section 170 can provide a signal to the vehicle drive apparatus 600 so that the vehicle 100 follows the preceding vehicle.”, ¶ 0262, “For example, the determination unit 172 can determine the obstacle avoidance driving of the preceding vehicle.”. The cited passages clearly teach determining the travel path of a preceding vehicle.).
Ma in view of Beller teaches an autonomous vehicle. Ma in view of Beller does not teach wherein to determine the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle, the processor is configured to: identify a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle. Lee teaches wherein to determine the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle, the processor is configured to: identify a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the autonomous vehicle taught in Ma in view of Beller with wherein to determine the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle, the processor is configured to: identify a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle taught in Lee. Furthermore, the autonomous vehicle is already configured to detect and determine objects through received sensor data, so modifying this to include another data regarding a preceding vehicle would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of an autonomous vehicle wherein to determine the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle, the processor is configured to: identify a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the autonomous vehicle taught in Ma in view of Beller with wherein to determine the alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle, the processor is configured to: identify a travel path of one or more other vehicles preceding the autonomous vehicle taught in Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on Pages 8-9, Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the amended limitations of the independent claims. Specifically on Pages 8-9, Applicant argues that the primary reference Ma and the secondary reference Beller fails to teach the limitation “determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section of this Final Office Action, Ma was not relied upon to teach the above limitation. Ma teaches a path determination system comprising a processor and a memory, the processor configured to (Ma: Figure 5 computing device 504, Column 13 lines 53-67, Column 15 lines 23-50, Column 15 lines 51-65): receive sensor data from one or more sensors of an autonomous vehicle (Ma: Column 4 lines 39-52); identify, based on the sensor data, (i) one or more forward travel lanes and (ii) one or more objects (Ma: Column 5 lines 39-48, Column 5 lines 49-62, Column 6 lines 9-23); determine the one or more objects form a barrier indicating closure of all of the one or more forward travel lanes (Ma: Column 9 lines 9-24, Column 9 lines 25-44); when the barrier indicates closure of all of the one or more forward travel lanes, determine an alternative travel path for the autonomous vehicle (Ma: Column 7 lines 1-32), the alternative travel path having boundaries defined at least in part by the one or more objects and deviating at least in part from the one or more travel lanes (Ma: Figures 3 and 4, Column 11 line 60 – Column 12 line 3, Column 12 lines 4-36, Column 12 line 63 – Column 13 line 4 Column 13 lines 5-16); control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path (Ma: Column 7 lines 1 -32). The secondary reference Beller, which was relied upon to teach the traversed limitation, teaches determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle (Beller: Figure 4, Column 13 lines 23-35, Column 13 lines 36-50); and in response to the boundaries of the alternative travel path defining a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle, control the autonomous vehicle to travel the alternative travel path (Beller: Figure 4, Column 13 lines 23-35, Column 13 lines 36-50). The cited paragraphs clearly teach that the system is configured to determine whether or not a distance defined by the object and a boundary (i.e. lane marker) is sized for the vehicle to travel through. The cited passages state that the distance defined by the object and the boundary is compared to the width of the vehicle or the width of the vehicle plus a safety margin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this is clearly a method of determining whether a travel path that is defined by boundaries is suitable for the width of the vehicle, wherein said boundaries are defined by a lane marking and the object. Ma teaches a method of determining an alternate travel path for a vehicle based on detecting objects that indicate a lane closure, determining the alternate travel path whose boundaries are defined by the objects, and causing the vehicle to travel said alternate path. Furthermore, the method of Ma is already configured to determine if the space between detected objects along a vehicles path meet a width threshold such that the vehicle can pass through them and controls the vehicle to travel the alternate path, so modifying the system such that it determines if the alternated travel path meets a width threshold using the method taught in Beller would not change or introduce new functionality. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to calculate a distance defined by boundaries and compare this distance to a vehicle width, and therefore would have been easily able to modify the method of Ma with determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle according to known methods. Such a modification would not have changed or introduced new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. determine the boundaries of the alternative travel path define a width sized for forward travel of the autonomous vehicle.
Therefore, for the reasons stated herein and for those in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section of this Final Office Action, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah W Stiebritz whose telephone number is (571)272-3414. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7-5 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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/N.W.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/TRUC M DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658