DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 293-312 filed on 05/13/2025 are presently examined. Claims 1-292 and 313-388 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 303-312 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 303-312 are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 303-312 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding independent claim 303, Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 303 is recited below and limitations that recite an abstract idea are emphasized in bolding below:
A method of associating an operating zone with a road segment, the method comprising:
at a database, receiving data collected by at least one sensor in one or more vehicles traveling along the road segment;
determining positions on the road segment occupied by the one or more vehicles while each vehicle was traveling along the road segment; and
including the determined positions in the operating zone.
The examiner submits that the above bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally determining positions on a road occupied by one or more vehicles and determining those positions to be in an operating zone. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method of associating an operating zone with a road segment, the method comprising:
at a database, receiving data collected by at least one sensor in one or more vehicles traveling along the road segment;
determining positions on the road segment occupied by the one or more vehicles while each vehicle was traveling along the road segment; and
including the determined positions in the operating zone.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above underlined additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner submits that these additional limitations merely use a sensors to perform an insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering, a computer (processor, generic computer components) to perform otherwise mental judgements as well as the receiving and/or transmission of data within a network. These additional limitations are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, claim 303 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor or generic computer components to gather data and perform the otherwise mental judgements amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further the additional limitations are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement, and do not amount to significantly more. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Dependent claims 304-306 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement or data gathering, and do not amount to significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding independent claim 307, Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 307 is recited below and limitations that recite an abstract idea are emphasized in bolding below:
A method of operating a vehicle along a road in a communication dead-zone, the method comprising:
determining that a vehicle is likely to enter the communication dead-zone;
transferring information associated with at least a portion of the road in the communication dead-zone from a remote database to data storage on-board the vehicle;
at a microprocessor, receiving the information from the onboard data storage on-board the vehicle; and
operating at least one system onboard the vehicle based at least partially on the information received at the microprocessor.
The examiner submits that the above bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally determining that a vehicle is likely to enter a communication dead-zone and operating a system onboard the vehicle based on information received at a microprocessor. An example system that may be operated mentally by a person onboard the vehicle is alerting the driver visually or audibly, as described in Applicant’s specification [page 2, lines 3-4 and page 3, lines 15-17], or more specifically alerting the driver to change speed of the vehicle [page 3, lines 13-14] “initiating, via an advanced driver assistance system of the vehicle, an alert to a driver to change a driving speed of the vehicle.” Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method of operating a vehicle along a road in a communication dead-zone, the method comprising:
determining that a vehicle is likely to enter the communication dead-zone;
transferring information associated with at least a portion of the road in the communication dead-zone from a remote database to data storage on-board the vehicle;
at a microprocessor, receiving the information from the onboard data storage on-board the vehicle; and
operating at least one system onboard the vehicle based at least partially on the information received at the microprocessor.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above underlined additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner submits that these additional limitations merely use a sensors to perform an insignificant extra-solution activity of transmitting a receiving data in a network.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, claim 307 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor or generic computer components to gather data and perform the otherwise mental judgements amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further the additional limitations are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement, and do not amount to significantly more. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Dependent claims 308-312 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement or data gathering, and do not amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 293-295 and 300-303 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beller et al. (US 20200139967 A1).
Regarding claim 293, Beller discloses A method of operating an autonomous vehicle along a road, the method comprising:
based, at least partially, on information from at least one on-board sensor about a segment of the road ahead of the vehicle, planning a first trajectory of travel of the vehicle from a current position to a second position ([0026] “The drivable area may have been previously determined based on positions/locations of one or more static obstacles (e.g., lane boundaries, curbs, sidewalks, parked cars, etc.) and/or dynamic obstacles (e.g., oncoming traffic, etc.) in the environment” [FIG. 2] Ego vehicle 102 determines drivable area 206 using sensors on-board the vehicle, and forms first trajectory 204.);
based on information about the current position of the vehicle received from a terrain-based localization system and the first planned trajectory, determining that at least one position in the first planned trajectory is outside an operating zone associated with the road ([0050] “A map can be …terrain.” [0051] “localization system 520 can … receive a map … continuously determine a location and/or orientation of the autonomous vehicle within the map.” [FIG. 2] Ego vehicle 102. First trajectory 204. First drivable area 206. Other vehicle 104 is predicted to enter ego vehicle 102’s lane. Drivable area is updated with the cutout 214. First trajectory 204 is determined to intersect with the drivable area, entering a non-drivable area 214.);
based on the determination, planning a second trajectory that does not include the at least one position in the first trajectory ([FIG. 2] Ego vehicle 102 updates trajectory to second trajectory 220 that does not intersect into the non-drivable area.); and
operating the autonomous vehicle along the second trajectory ([0018] “trajectories may be provided to a planner system to control an operation of the autonomous vehicle”).
Regarding claim 294, Beller discloses The method of claim 293, wherein an autonomous level of the autonomous vehicle is one or greater but less than or equal to 5 ([0010] “the drivable area is determined by computing device(s) on an autonomous vehicle and can be utilized by those computing device(s) to navigate the autonomous vehicle in the environment.” Vehicle autonomy levels range from 1 to 5 according to the amount of autonomous capability, a range created by the Society of Automotive Engineers and adopted by the U.S. Department of Transportation. It is clear the autonomous vehicle from Beller is at least 1 or above, and is likely somewhere between 3 and 5. The vehicle drives according to its own created paths based on sensor data.).
Regarding claim 295, Beller discloses The method of claim 293, wherein the at least one on-board sensor is selected from the group consisting of a radar detector, a camera, a GNSS receiver, a laser ranging sensor, sonar sensor, and LiDAR ([0012] “Sensor data captured by the autonomous vehicle may include light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor data, radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor data, sound navigation and ranging (SONAR) sensor date, image data, time of flight data”).
Regarding claim 300, Beller discloses The method of claim 293, further comprising limiting a speed of the autonomous vehicle in a portion of the operating zone ([0041] “a determination may be made with respect to geometry (whether the trajectory 204 intersects and/or comes within a threshold distance of the modified drivable area 206*) and/or by reevaluating various costs associated with the modified drivable area 206* … trip parameters may comprise … vehicle speed, changes in vehicle acceleration, following distances, accident risk factors and vehicle dynamics (e.g., which may be used to determine a safe stop trajectory for safely and comfortably slowing down (or stopping))”).
Regarding claim 301, Beller discloses The method of claim 293, wherein an alarm is provided to an occupant of the vehicle when a planned trajectory includes a position outside the operating zone ([0054] “prediction system 524 may provide an indication (e.g., an audio and/or visual alert) to a driver of a predicted event that may affect travel” wherein the predicted event is the trajectory entering a non-navigable region.).
Regarding claim 302, Beller discloses The method of claim 293, further comprising determining the operating zone with a cloud-based microprocessor and providing information about the zone to a microprocessor on-board the autonomous vehicle at least partially based on information received from a cloud based database ([0070] “drivable area determination component 544 may process data to determine a drivable area remote from the vehicle. For example, the drivable area (or a preferred drivable area from a plurality of drivable areas) may be determined at computing device(s) 538 and transferred back to vehicle 502, e.g., via networks 536.”).
Regarding claim 303, Beller discloses A method of associating an operating zone with a road segment, the method comprising: at a database, receiving data collected by at least one sensor in one or more vehicles traveling along the road segment ([0070] “drivable area determination component 544 may process data to determine a drivable area remote from the vehicle. For example, the drivable area (or a preferred drivable area from a plurality of drivable areas) may be determined at computing device(s) 538 and transferred back to vehicle 502, e.g., via networks 536.” [0007] “The vehicle can capture sensor data of the environment, which may represent an object such as another vehicle in an adjacent lane or otherwise proximate to the vehicle.”);
determining positions on the road segment occupied by the one or more vehicles while each vehicle was traveling along the road segment ([0007] “The vehicle can capture sensor data of the environment, which may represent an object such as another vehicle in an adjacent lane or otherwise proximate to the vehicle.” [FIGs 1-4] positions of other vehicles on the road segments. [0007] “The drivable area can be updated to reflect a current or predicted position of the object”); and
including the determined positions in the operating zone ([0071] “Drivable area determination component 544 may also or alternatively consider features of objects to characterize the drivable area. Features can include an extent of an object (e.g., height, weight, length, etc.), a pose of an object (e.g., x-coordinate, y-coordinate, z-coordinate, pitch, roll, yaw) … determined by a perception system onboard a sensor data source (e.g., vehicle 502 and/or the other vehicle(s) and/or data collection device(s)) and other of the features can be determined based on such features and/or other sensor data and/or map data associated with a map of the environment.”).
Claims 307-311 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murren et al. (US 9327740 B2), hereinafter referred to as Murren.
Regarding claim 307, Murren discloses A method of operating a vehicle along a road in a communication dead-zone, the method comprising:
determining that a vehicle is likely to enter the communication dead-zone ([column 18, lines 44-51] “identifying a vehicle traveling on a route entering a pre-load zone. The pre-load zone defines an area of the route between at least two boundaries that is associated with reliable communication. The pre-load zone lies outside a communication dead zone that is associated with unreliable communication. The communication dead zone encompasses a starting location for a trip of the vehicle along the route.”);
transferring information associated with at least a portion of the road in the communication dead-zone from a remote database to data storage on-board the vehicle ([column 13, lines 57-67] “The route 104 is segmented into trip AB, defined between markers A and B, and trip BC, defined between markers B and C. The communication dead zone 140 encompasses marker B, which is the starting location of trip BC … the vehicle 201 may request trip data relevant to trip BC from the off-board system 136 (shown in FIG. 1) as the vehicle 201 approaches or reaches marker B.” [column 15, lines 1-3] “for a vehicle 201 traveling in direction 230 towards marker B, the pre-load zone 142 shown in FIG. 4 is associated with the trip BC.” [column 15 line 60 through column 16 line 2] “the off-board device 136 forms a trip response message 248, and transmits the trip response message 248 to the vehicle 201 before the vehicle 201 enters the communication dead zone 140. The trip response message 248 includes trip data 250 for the trip BC that the vehicle 201 is approaching. The trip data 250 may be pre-formatted into a trip plan or may include various trip information, track information, and vehicle information that the energy management system 216 (shown in FIG. 2) may use to generate a trip plan for the trip BC.”);
at a microprocessor, receiving the information from the data storage on-board the vehicle ([column 16, lines 7-8] “Once the vehicle 201 receives the trip response message 248, the trip data 250 is stored in the memory device 204 “); and
operating at least one system onboard the vehicle based at least partially on the information received at the microprocessor ([column 16, lines 25-33] “the trip initialization may begin automatically as soon as the vehicle 201 reaches the starting location of the trip (for example, marker B) … the energy management system 216 may begin to control movement of the vehicle 201 along the trip BC according to the trip plan.”).
Regarding claim 308, Murren discloses The method of claim 307, wherein communication to and/or from the vehicle is at least partially blocked because of an obstruction selected from the group consisting of a tunnel, a natural structure, and a man-made structure ([column 8, lines 18-24] “some areas may have weak signal strength and/or quality due to being located a long distance from a base station 138, due to natural and/or artificial obstructions, or the like. An area along the route 104 associated with unreliable communication, due to weak signal strength and/or quality, is referred to herein as a communication dead zone 140.” [column 8, lines 33-34] “weak signal strength and/or quality due to natural obstructions caused by mountainous geography”).
Regarding claim 309, Murren discloses The method of claim 307, wherein communication to and/or from the vehicle is at least partially prevented because communication towers are out of range ([column 8, lines 18-24] “some areas may have weak signal strength and/or quality due to being located a long distance from a base station 138 … An area along the route 104 associated with unreliable communication, due to weak signal strength and/or quality, is referred to herein as a communication dead zone 140.”).
Regarding claim 310, Murren discloses The method of claim 307, wherein the information associated with at least a portion of the road includes road surface information ([column 6, lines 51-52] “trip data may include trip information, vehicle information, track information” [column 7, lines 1-4] “Track information includes information about the track 106 along the trip, such as locations of damaged sections, sections under repair or construction, the curvature and/or grade of the track 106”).
Regarding claim 311, Murren discloses The method of claim 310, wherein road surface information includes road surface profile ([column 6, lines 51-52] “trip data may include trip information, vehicle information, track information” [column 7, lines 1-4] “Track information includes information about the track 106 along the trip, such as locations of damaged sections, sections under repair or construction, the curvature and/or grade of the track 106”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 296 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beller, as applied to claim 293 above, in view of Sridhar et al. (US 20200139784 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sridhar.
Regarding claim 296, Beller fails to disclose The method of claim 293, wherein the terrain-based localization system determines the current position at least partially based on a comparison of data collected during a current trip with previously collected crowd-sourced data.
However, Sridhar teaches the terrain-based localization system determines the current position at least partially based on a comparison of data collected during a current trip with previously collected crowd-sourced data ([FIG. 8] sensor data of ego vehicle captures vertical motion of wheels and is compared to previously recorded sequences of vertical motion, and the location of the ego vehicle is determined based on said crowd-sourced data. [0037] “sensors may include instruments that collect information about how the road surface affects various parameters of a vehicle … wheel motion (e.g., vertical wheel motion) (e.g., acceleration of the wheel or wheel hub, velocity of the wheel or wheel hub, or changes in position of the wheel or wheel hub), forces exerted on the wheels by the road (e.g., forces in the vertical direction), and/or vehicle speed may be used to determine information about elevation features of the road surface (e.g., the location and/or dimensions of a bump or valley in the road surface, the difference in elevation between two points in the road surface) or the radius of a particular turn.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beller with Sridhar’s teaching of a crowd-source terrain based crowd sourced vehicle localization system that localizes a vehicle based on the comparison of its current sensor data with previously recorded sensor data. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use crowd-sourced vehicle sensor road data to localize an ego vehicle since it is more accurate compared to other techniques (Sridhar [0033] “Inventors have recognized that previously obtained and/or stored detailed information about road topography and/or certain, for example, surface features, i.e. the road's fingerprint, may be used to more accurately locate a vehicle on the road compared to other localization techniques.”).
Claims 297 and 299 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beller, as applied to claim 293 above, in view of Golov (US 11161518 B2), hereinafter referred to as Golov.
Regarding claim 297, Beller fails to disclose The method of claim 293, wherein the operating zone is at least partially determined to include positions of vehicles in trajectories previously traveled by one or more vehicles.
However, Golov teaches the operating zone is at least partially determined to include positions of vehicles in trajectories previously traveled by one or more vehicles ([column 5, lines 8-10] “identifying an unsafe location requires that a number of braking events within a time period exceed a predetermined number or threshold.” [column 5, lines 30-32] “these other vehicles can be vehicles that have previously traveled over the same road that a current vehicle is presently traveling on.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beller with Golov’s teaching of a crowd-source data system that intakes data from a plurality of vehicles taking trips on roads. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use crowd-sourcing of vehicle data that take trips over the same roads that the current vehicle is travelling on in order to avoid any unsafe locations determined from the crowd sourced data (Golov [column 5, lines 33-35] “the current vehicle can be controlled during operation so as to avoid any unsafe locations that are determined from the braking event data.”).
Regarding claim 299, Beller fails to disclose The method of claim 293, wherein the operating zone further excludes positions identified based on information received about the road from a governmental agency.
However, Golov teaches the operating zone further excludes positions identified based on information received about the road from a governmental agency ([column 6, lines 31-35] “the cloud service can send a communication to a server operated by governmental authorities. The communication can, for example, identify that a road has an unsafe condition (e.g., at an identified location).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beller with Golov’s teaching of providing data on unsafe road locations from government authorities. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to have government authorities provide data on unsafe road locations in order to use said information to improve road conditions and driving safety (Golov [column 5, lines 19-21] “information can be used, for example, to improve road conditions, traffic sign and traffic lights infrastructure around the unsafe location (e.g., this may improve driving safety)”).
Claims 298 and 304-306 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beller, as applied to claims 293 and 303 above, and further in view of Canavor et al. (US 9953535 B1), hereinafter referred to as Canavor.
Regarding claim 298, Beller fails to disclose The method of claim 293, wherein the operating zone excludes positions where no vehicle has traveled previously.
However, Canavor teaches the operating zone excludes positions where no vehicle has traveled previously ([column 4, lines 45-51] “The obstacle location 126 may be determined by a lack of location data at the obstacle location 126 when location data is expected at the corresponding location and/or based on vehicle control signals, which may indicate consistent and irregular controls that cause vehicles to avoid the obstacle area 126 when the corresponding location was previously not avoided.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beller with Canavor’s teaching of a crowd-source data system that intakes historical data from a plurality of vehicles and finding a pattern of vehicles avoiding an area. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use determine if there is a pattern of vehicles avoiding an area to infer there may be an obstacle and enable an autonomous vehicle to avoid an obstacle that may interfere with a route travelled by the vehicle (Canavor [column 4, lines 51-54] “The service provider 104 may infer the presence of the obstacle 128 in the obstacle area 126, possibly without knowing an exact object causing the obstacle.” [column 11, lines 18-22] “identify if the obstacle is present and/or to enable reaction to the obstacle or other objects (e.g., other vehicles), which may take avoidance action to avoid the obstacle, and possibly interfere with a route traveled by the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 304, Beller fails to disclose The method of claim 303, further comprising, a weighting factor associated with a number of positions in the operating zone.
However, Canavor teaches a weighting factor associated with a number of positions in the operating zone ([column 6, lines 42-47] “update the aggregated virtual track data continually or from time to time as new data is received from vehicles. The aggregation module 208 may apply a decay function to some data to cause at least some of the data to become less influential or be removed from use in the aggregated virtual track data.” [column 3, lines 8-18] “aggregated location information may reveal that a roadway has three lanes that travel in a same direction. The information, during a period of time, may also show that one lane has not been traversed by a vehicle in a relatively long period of time. This information may be used to determine that an obstacle exists along this lane. The virtual track may then be annotated to indicate an obstacle in that lane for an amount of time. The annotation may be modified or removed after later information shows vehicles passing through that portion of the lane again.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beller with Canavor’s teaching of a crowd-source data system that intakes historical data from a plurality of vehicles and weights the trajectory frequency of the past vehicles. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to determine if there is a pattern of vehicles avoiding an area to infer there may be an obstacle and enable an autonomous vehicle to avoid an obstacle that may interfere with a route travelled by the vehicle (Canavor [column 4, lines 51-54] “The service provider 104 may infer the presence of the obstacle 128 in the obstacle area 126, possibly without knowing an exact object causing the obstacle.” [column 11, lines 18-22] “identify if the obstacle is present and/or to enable reaction to the obstacle or other objects (e.g., other vehicles), which may take avoidance action to avoid the obstacle, and possibly interfere with a route traveled by the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 305, Beller fails to disclose The method of claim 304, wherein the weighting factor associated with each of the number of positions in the operating zone is based on a relative frequency with which each position was occupied by a vehicle while traveling on the road segment.
However, Canavor teaches the weighting factor associated with each of the number of positions in the operating zone is based on a relative frequency with which each position was occupied by a vehicle while traveling on the road segment ([column 6, lines 42-47] “update the aggregated virtual track data continually or from time to time as new data is received from vehicles. The aggregation module 208 may apply a decay function to some data to cause at least some of the data to become less influential or be removed from use in the aggregated virtual track data.” [column 3, lines 8-18] “aggregated location information may reveal that a roadway has three lanes that travel in a same direction. The information, during a period of time, may also show that one lane has not been traversed by a vehicle in a relatively long period of time. This information may be used to determine that an obstacle exists along this lane. The virtual track may then be annotated to indicate an obstacle in that lane for an amount of time. The annotation may be modified or removed after later information shows vehicles passing through that portion of the lane again.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beller with Canavor’s teaching of a crowd-source data system that intakes historical data from a plurality of vehicles and weighting the trajectory frequency of the previous vehicles. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to determine if there is a pattern of vehicles avoiding an area to infer there may be an obstacle and enable an autonomous vehicle to avoid an obstacle that may interfere with a route travelled by the vehicle (Canavor [column 4, lines 51-54] “The service provider 104 may infer the presence of the obstacle 128 in the obstacle area 126, possibly without knowing an exact object causing the obstacle.” [column 11, lines 18-22] “identify if the obstacle is present and/or to enable reaction to the obstacle or other objects (e.g., other vehicles), which may take avoidance action to avoid the obstacle, and possibly interfere with a route traveled by the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 306, Beller fails to disclose The method of claim 304, wherein the weighting factor associated with each of the number of positions in the operating zone is further based on a speed of each vehicle at a time when the vehicle was located at each position.
However, Canavor teaches the weighting factor associated with each of the number of positions in the operating zone is further based on a speed of each vehicle at a time when the vehicle was located at each position (the aggregation and decay of data is a weighting factor, the more frequent a vehicle is at a location or avoids a location results in influence on the annotated route. [column 3, lines 20-26] “rapid deceleration and/or irregular steering inputs may be used for creation of annotations that indicate a dangerous or high-alert area.” [column 2, lines 46-50] “The obstacles may include items blocking part of a roadway, objects or people that may be near the roadway, activity of vehicles on the roadway (e.g., slow moving, erratic behavior, high level of braking, high variation in speed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beller with Canavor’s teaching of aggregating vehicle behavior at positions along a route including recorded speed of the vehicle. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use aggregated recorded speed of vehicles at positions along a route of crowd-sourced data in order to enable trailing vehicles to travel slower at said positions if an obstacle is present (Canavor; the aggregated speed behavior: [column 3, lines 22-26] “may then be processed by the trailing vehicle to cause the trailing vehicle to travel slower through the segment and/or increase a spacing from other vehicles proximate to the trailing vehicle, among other possible actions implemented by the trailing vehicle”).
Claim 312 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullen, as applied to claims 307 above, in view of Sridhar.
Regarding claim 312, Mullen fails to explicitly disclose The method of claim 307, wherein the at least one system includes a terrain-based vehicle localization system ([column 11, lines 54-62] “the location determining device 212 may use GPS … alternatively … communicate with sensors or markers along the route 104 to determine the location of the vehicle 201 along the route 104.”).
However, Sridhar teaches the at least one system includes a terrain-based vehicle localization system ([abstract] “obtaining vertical motion data while driving over the first road segment, comparing the obtained vertical motion data to reference vertical motion data associated with at least one candidate road segment, and identifying, based on the comparison, a location of the vehicle.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mullen with Sridhar’s teaching of a crowd-source terrain based crowd sourced vehicle localization system that localizes a vehicle based on the comparison of its current sensor data with previously recorded sensor data. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use crowd-sourced vehicle sensor road data to localize an ego vehicle since it is more accurate compared to other techniques (Sridhar [0033] “Inventors have recognized that previously obtained and/or stored detailed information about road topography and/or certain, for example, surface features, i.e. the road's fingerprint, may be used to more accurately locate a vehicle on the road compared to other localization techniques.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights