DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 received on 08/15/2024 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: determine whether the distance an add point to a split point should read determine whether the distance from an add point to a split point. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which is recorded instructions, wherein execution of the instructions by a processor causes the processor to, of claim X: should read [[A]] The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim X further causes the processor to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 13 and 17 recite the limitation "the distance an add point to a split point". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recite the limitation " the path". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14-16 and 18-20 are dependent on claims 13 and 17, and fail to cure the deficiencies thereof, thus are rejected on the same basis.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
Independent claims recite the additional claim limitation of mitigating a path by […], thus applies or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, thus integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, as supported by para. [0001] and [0024] of the specification reproduced below:
[0001] The present disclosure relates to methods for mitigating path planning failure modes in route following applications. This is a comprehensive planning algorithm for following lane splits and lane adds in route following applications. Currently no technologies exist for mitigating path planning failure modes in route following application.
[0036] In general, the route following lane add/split scenario adds a new layer of
complexity to the lane centering application, and the margin for error is also lower as the shoulders are often narrower and concrete barriers may be present. First, controller 20 determines if the lane change required is the added lane 24 and/or the lane split 26
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIRO (US20200307596A1), in view of KONDO (US 20170203770 A1), and further in view of Eagelberg (US 20210072765 A1).
Regarding claim 1, YASHIRO teaches a method of mitigating path planning failure modes (para. [0007]: “In a scene where the number of lanes is increased or decreased, however, the automated driving device as described above in the conventional technology has such a problem that an appropriate level of automated driving is prevented and an unstable control state (something uncomfortable felt by a vehicle occupant) is brought about”), comprising:
determining an added lane versus a lane split(FIG. 13; para. [0084]: “The specific area herein means an area with an interchange, a junction, the number of lanes increased or decreased, or the like. The area specification unit 143 acquires a specific area from map information.”; para. [0165]: “FIG. 13 is a diagram illustrating an exit or junction scene in an automated driving on an expressway”, wherein specific areas comprise of added lane and lane split, and such distinguishment is determined based on map information as shown in FIG. 13);
determining road geometry features (para. [0129]-[0130]: “length of a lane marker; widths of a road and a shoulder […] The road information includes: information indicating a type of a road such as an expressway, a toll road, a national road, and a prefectural road; the number of lanes of a road, a width of each lane, a gradient of a road, a position of a road (three-dimensional coordinates including a longitude, a latitude, and an altitude), a curvature of a curve in a lane, a position of a junction and a fork in a lane, and a traffic sign installed on a road);
determining a first distance between the specific area and the another specific area (FIG. 13; FIG. 16 S201; para. [0192]: “If, in step S102, the subject vehicle M is determined to have entered a specific area (an interchange, a junction, or the number of lanes increased or decreased) (step S102: Yes), or if, in step S103, the subject vehicle M is determined to be traveling a predetermined distance short of the specific area (step S103: Yes), then, in step S201, the control state change unit 145 determines, after passing through the specific area, whether or not another specific area is present (for example, similar to or relevant to the having-already-passed specific area) within a re-shift start distance”); and
mitigating a path by one of: giving a driver control of a vehicle; and retaining control of the vehicle via an electronic driving system (FID. 13; FIG. 15; FIG. 16 S104 and S105; para. [0180]: “HMI 70 notifies the vehicle occupant of the shift via an image or speech indicating that “the driving status is shifted to the second driving status because the subject vehicle is approaching an interchange, a junction, or an area with the number of the lanes decreased””, wherein second driving status or third driving status corresponds to an example of retaining control of the vehicle via an electronic driving system), but fails to specifically teach distinguishing an added lane versus a lane split, such that there are distinguished features, determining road geometry features from the distinguished features and determining a first distance between the added lane area and the lane split from the distinguished features.
However, in the same field of endeavor, KONDO teaches determining a first distance between the added lane and the lane split from the distinguished features (FIG. 3; FIG. 4; FIG. 5; FIG. 6; para. [0050]: “For example, the vehicle is required to make a lane change within a short section (e.g. 500 m or less), a large number of other vehicles are traveling in the lane to which a lane change is to be made, or the like”; para. [0070]: “case where it is necessary for the vehicle to change to a different road 52 at a JCT, at which a main lane 51 and the different road 52 are connected to each other as illustrated in FIG. 6, in order to reach a destination location, for example, it is necessary to make a lane change to the left lane. If it is determined that a lane change cannot be made through the automated drive control because […] a section in which the vehicle is required to make a lane change is too short,”, wherein determination that the section is “short” indicates determining a first distance between the added lane and the lane split from the distinguished features as shown in FIG 6, which shows a vehicle lane changing from an added lane to lane split); and
mitigating a path by one of: giving a driver control of a vehicle; and retaining control of the vehicle via an electronic driving system (FIG. 3; FIG. 4; para. [0078]: “After that, in S17, the CPU 41 executes processing of interrupting the automated drive control or standing by for switching.”).
YASHIRO and KONDO are analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to determination of whether to continue autonomous driving based on the driving environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of YASHIRO and incorporate the teachings of KONDO and determine the presence of lane marks. Doing so enhances safety of the operation of autonomous vehicle by determining whether the vehicle can travel appropriately along the lane. YASHIRO in view of KONDO fails to specifically teach distinguishing an added lane versus a lane split, such that there are distinguished features and determining road geometry features from the distinguished features.
However, Eagelberg teaches distinguishing an added lane versus a lane split, such that there are distinguished features (FIG. 9; para. [0206]: “determining the type of the identified lane mark(s) in step 910 may involve determining a change in lane mark labels and/or lane mark identifies between images. Such a determination may permit processing unit 110 to further determine what type of merge lane (e.g., “merge” merge lane, “merge to” merge lane, or “merge from” merge lane) or what type of split lane (e.g., “split” split lane, “lane open” split lane, or “lane expansion” split lane) is occurring on road 1002.”; para. [0182]: “For instance, referring to FIG. 10A, if the detected lane mark characteristic(s) include a distance between lane marks 1004A and 1004C and/or between lane marks 1004B and 1004C, a decreasing distance between the lane marks may indicate that the lane mark type for lane mark 1004C is a merge lane.”; para. [0216]: “detected lane mark characteristic(s) include, for example, a distance of the at least one identified lane mark to a reference point, such as another mark on the road, using the detected lane mark characteristic(s) to determine a type of the identified lane mark(s) may involve determining whether the distance between the identified lane mark(s) and the reference point is increasing, decreasing, or remaining constant as a distance from the host vehicle increases (e.g., over a distance along the road forward of the host vehicle). For instance, referring to FIG. 12A, if the detected lane mark characteristic(s) include a distance between lane marks 1204A and 1204C and/or between lane marks 1204B and 1204D, an increasing distance between the lane marks may indicate that the lane mark type is a split lane”, wherein lane marks correspond to the distinguished features) and determining road geometry features from the distinguished features (para. [0180]: “FIG. 10A, the detected lane mark characteristic(s) may include an intersection of lane marks 1004B and 1004C. As still another example, the detected lane mark characteristic(s) may include a change in lateral distance between the at least one identified lane mark and at least one other lane mark of road 1002”; para. [0225]: “For example, if, as shown in FIG. 12A, the road 1202 splits to form an exit lane, and host vehicle 200 is to remain on road 1202, processing unit 110 may identify lane mark 1204A, which is a “host left” lane mark delineating a left edge of the “host lane,” to estimate a curvature of road 1202)”, wherein distance and curvature correspond to road geometry features).
Eagelberg is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of identifying lane addition and splits. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the usage of map information to determine merging and branching points of YASHIRO in view of KONDO with the usage of lane marks of Eagelberg, because they both perform the function of identification of the road characteristics and one could have substituted the mechanisms and the result of the substitution would have been predictable in determining a presence of lane addition or split section ahead.
Claims 2-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIRO, in view of KONDO, and further in view of Eagelberg, and further in view of PARK (US20220262137A1).
Regarding claim 2, YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg teaches the method of mitigating path planning failure modes of claim 1. The combination of KONDO and Eagelberg further teaches wherein the road geometry features include curvature and (KONDO FIG. 5; KONDO para. [0026]: “The stored link data 33 include: […] data representing the radius of curvature”; KONDO para. [0052]: “The vehicle travels on a road in a specific shape that does not allow execution of the automated drive control (e.g. a curve with a predetermined curvature or more, or a slope at a predetermined inclination angle or more”; Eagelberg; para. [0225]: “For example, if, as shown in FIG. 12A, the road 1202 splits to form an exit lane, and host vehicle 200 is to remain on road 1202, processing unit 110 may identify lane mark 1204A, which is a “host left” lane mark delineating a left edge of the “host lane,” to estimate a curvature of road 1202), but fails to specifically teach curvature derivative.
However, PARK teaches teaches wherein the road geometry features include curvature and a curvature derivative (FIG. 1 S10; FIG. 2; para. [0010]: “a curvature of lane at the lane-tracking control reference-point, and a reference change-rate, i.e., a change rate of the reference curvature, based on an image captured by a front camera of the vehicle;”; para. [0067]: “Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, a method of estimating curvature of a lane in front of a vehicle according to an embodiment of the disclosure includes the steps of obtaining a reference distance C0, i.e., a vehicle transverse distance from a lane-tracking control reference-point P to a specific portion of a vehicle V, a reference angle C1, i.e., an angle between a first extension line L1 extending from the lane-tracking control reference-point P in a forward direction of the vehicle V and the lane, a reference curvature C2, i.e., the curvature of the lane at the lane-tracking control reference-point P, and a reference change-rate C3, i.e., a change rate of the reference curvature C2 based on an image captured by a front camera CA of the vehicle V (S10);”)
PARK is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to determination of whether to continue autonomous driving based on the driving environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and obtain curvature derivative as taught by PARK. Doing so will result in accurate assessment of the curvature of the road, and enhance safety by authority for controlling a steering wheel is transferred to a driver while informing the driver of a dangerous situation in advance, so that the driver can have enough time to properly control the steering wheel (PARK, para. [0090]).
Regarding claim 3, YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and further in view of PARK teaches the method of mitigating path planning failure modes of claim 2. YASHIRO and KONDO further teach further comprising: using a go or no go decision to determine whether a driver gets control or whether the vehicle retains control (YASHIRO FIG. 16 S104 or S105; KONDO FIG. 2 S6 and S8; KONDO FIG. 5; KONDO para. [0048]: “In S6, the CPU 41 executes processing of determining, on the basis of the various types of information acquired in S1 and S2, whether or not the vehicle is currently in a situation where the automated drive control can be executed.”).
Regarding claim 4, YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and further in view of PARK teaches the method of mitigating path planning failure modes of claim 3. YASHIRO and KONDO further teach further comprising: determining whether a distance from add point to split point is greater than a second distance (YASHIRO FIG. 16; YASHIRO para. [0192: “then, in step S201, the control state change unit 145 determines, after passing through the specific area, whether or not another specific area is present (for example, similar to or relevant to the having-already-passed specific area) within a re-shift start distance”; KONDO FIG. 6; KONDO para. [0050]: “For example, the vehicle is required to make a lane change within a short section (e.g. 500 m or less), a large number of other vehicles are traveling in the lane to which a lane change is to be made, or the like”).
Regarding claim 8, YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and further in view of PARK teaches the method of mitigating path planning failure modes of claim 2. YASHIRO and KONDO further teach further comprising: determining a second distance between a respective one of the lane adds and a respective one of the lane splits (YASHIRO FIG. 16; YASHIRO para. [0192: “then, in step S201, the control state change unit 145 determines, after passing through the specific area, whether or not another specific area is present (for example, similar to or relevant to the having-already-passed specific area) within a re-shift start distance”; KONDO FIG. 6; KONDO para. [0050]: “For example, the vehicle is required to make a lane change within a short section (e.g. 500 m or less), a large number of other vehicles are traveling in the lane to which a lane change is to be made, or the like”).
Claims 5-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIRO, in view of KONDO, and further in view of Eagelberg, and further in view of PARK, and further in view of YANG (US20230303127A1).
Regarding claim 5, YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and further in view of PARK teaches the method of mitigating path planning failure modes of claim 4. KONDO further teaches determining a lane width (para. [0026]: “The stored link data 33 include: for links composing a road, data representing the width of the road to […], location at which the width is reduced,[…] a narrow street”), but fails to specifically teach further comprising: determining whether a lane width at split point is greater than a third distance.
However, YANG further teaches further comprising: determining whether a lane width at split point is greater than a third distance (FIGs. 2-4; para. [0067]: “when it is determined in S160 that the width of the diverging lane is equal to or less than the first reference value as shown in FIG. 3 , or the inter-lane distance is less than or equal to the second reference value as shown in FIG. 4 , the controller 140 may determine that the width of the lane or inter-lane distance is not secured, and the autonomous driving route cannot be created in a lane in which the width (W) of the lane is less than the first reference value or the inter-lane distance (D) is less than or equal to the second reference value”).
YANG is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of identifying lane splits during autonomous driving mode. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and further in view of PARK and incorporate the determination of lane width of divering lanes of YANG. Doing so will enhance safety by avoiding routes which the autonomous driving cannot reliably pass (YANG, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 6, YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and further in view of PARK and further in view of YANG teaches the method of mitigating path planning failure modes of claim 5. KONDO further teaches further comprising: generating takeover requests for timely ceding control (FIG. 6; para. [0077]: “If it is determined that a lane change cannot be made through the automated drive control because the road 52 is crowded, a section in which the vehicle is required to make a lane change is too short, or the like, audio guidance saying “The vehicle is heading for ◯◯. Automated drive cannot be executed because of the heavy traffic. Change to the left lane.” is output from the speaker 16”).
Regarding claim 7, YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and further in view of PARK and further in view of YANG teaches the method of mitigating path planning failure modes of claim 6. KONDO further teaches further comprising: rationalizing viability of a created trajectory (para. [0048]: “In S6, the CPU 41 executes processing of determining, on the basis of the various types of information acquired in S1 and S2, whether or not the vehicle is currently in a situation where the automated drive control can be executed.”, wherein determination of whether the action/trajectory can be executed by the autonomous vehicle indicates rationalizing viability of a created trajectory).
Regarding claim 9, YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and further in view of PARK teaches the method of mitigating path planning failure modes of claim 8. KONDO further teaches determining a lane width (para. [0026]: “The stored link data 33 include: for links composing a road, data representing the width of the road to […], location at which the width is reduced,[…] a narrow street”), but fails to specifically teach further comprising: determining whether a lane width at split point is greater than a third distance.
However, YANG further teaches further comprising: determining whether a lane width at split point is greater than a third distance (FIGs. 2-4; para. [0067]: “when it is determined in S160 that the width of the diverging lane is equal to or less than the first reference value as shown in FIG. 3 , or the inter-lane distance is less than or equal to the second reference value as shown in FIG. 4 , the controller 140 may determine that the width of the lane or inter-lane distance is not secured, and the autonomous driving route cannot be created in a lane in which the width (W) of the lane is less than the first reference value or the inter-lane distance (D) is less than or equal to the second reference value”).
YANG is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of identifying lane splits during autonomous driving mode. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of KONDO in view of Eagelberg and incorporate the determination of lane width of diverging lanes of YANG. Doing so will enhance safety by avoiding routes which the autonomous driving cannot reliably pass (YANG, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 10, YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and further in view of PARK and further in view of YANG teaches the method of mitigating path planning failure modes of claim 9. KONDO further teaches further comprising: generating takeover requests for timely ceding control (FIG. 6; para. [0077]: “If it is determined that a lane change cannot be made through the automated drive control because the road 52 is crowded, a section in which the vehicle is required to make a lane change is too short, or the like, audio guidance saying “The vehicle is heading for ◯◯. Automated drive cannot be executed because of the heavy traffic. Change to the left lane.” is output from the speaker 16”).
Regarding claim 11, YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and further in view of PARK and further in view of YANG teaches the method of mitigating path planning failure modes of claim 10. KONDO further teaches further comprising: rationalizing viability of a created trajectory (para. [0048]: “In S6, the CPU 41 executes processing of determining, on the basis of the various types of information acquired in S1 and S2, whether or not the vehicle is currently in a situation where the automated drive control can be executed.”, wherein determination of whether the action/trajectory can be executed by the autonomous vehicle indicates rationalizing viability of a created trajectory).
Regarding claim 12, YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and further in view of PARK and further in view of YANG teaches the method of mitigating path planning failure modes of claim 11. YASHIRO and KONDO further teach further comprising: using a go or no go decision to determine whether a driver gets control or whether the vehicle retains control (YASHIRO FIG. 16 S104 or S105; KONDO FIG. 2 S6 and S8; KONDO FIG. 5; KONDO para. [0048]: “In S6, the CPU 41 executes processing of determining, on the basis of the various types of information acquired in S1 and S2, whether or not the vehicle is currently in a situation where the automated drive control can be executed.”).
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIRO, in view of KONDO, and further in view of Eagelberg, and further in view of YANG, and further in view of PARK.
Regarding claim 13, YASHIRO teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which is recorded instructions, wherein execution of the instructions by a processor causes the processor to (para. [0230]: “Part or all of a configuration, a function, a processing part, a processing unit, or the like described above can be realized by hardware by means of, for example, designing using an integrated circuit. The aforementioned configuration, function, or the like can be embodied by software in which a processor interprets and executes a program which realizes the function. Information such as a program, a table, a file, or the like for realizing such a function can be stored in a storage device including a memory, a hard disk, and a SSD (Solid State Drive) or in a storage medium including an IC (Integrated Circuit) card, a SD (Secure Digital) card, and an optical disc”):
determine lane adds versus lane splits (FIG. 13; para. [0084]: “The specific area herein means an area with an interchange, a junction, the number of lanes increased or decreased, or the like. The area specification unit 143 acquires a specific area from map information.”; para. [0165]: “FIG. 13 is a diagram illustrating an exit or junction scene in an automated driving on an expressway”);
determine road geometry features, including curvature and (para. [0130]: “The road information includes: information indicating a type of a road such as an expressway, a toll road, a national road, and a prefectural road; the number of lanes of a road, a width of each lane, a gradient of a road, a position of a road (three-dimensional coordinates including a longitude, a latitude, and an altitude), a curvature of a curve in a lane, a position of a junction and a fork in a lane, and a traffic sign installed on a road.”);
determine a first distance between an specific area or a specific area from the distinguished features (FIG. 13; para. [0192]: “If, in step S102, the subject vehicle M is determined to have entered a specific area (an interchange, a junction, or the number of lanes increased or decreased) (step S102: Yes), or if, in step S103, the subject vehicle M is determined to be traveling a predetermined distance short of the specific area”, wherein specific area comprises of added lane or a lane split, and comparison to a predetermined distance indicates determine a first distance);
determine whether an adjacent lane exists outside of the added lane (FIG. 4; para. [0081]: “FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating a state in which the subject vehicle position recognition unit 141 recognizes a relative position of the subject vehicle M with respect to a travel lane. In FIG. 4: a first lane L1 is a travel lane defined by a lane marking LL and a lane marking CL; a second lane L2 is a travel lane defined by the lane marking CL and a lane marking RL, both of which are the lanes in which a vehicle travels in a direction +X. The lanes L1 and L2 are adjacent to each other for vehicles travelling in the same direction. There is a road shoulder on the left of the first lane L1.”; para. [0098]: “The specific area used herein includes: a first lane leading to an area in which the number of lanes is increased or decreased; and a second lane adjacent to the first lane.”; para. [0130]: “The high-accuracy map information 181 may also include […] the number of lanes of a road, a width of each lane, a gradient of a road, a position of a road”, wherein lane information regarding the number of lanes and determination of adjacent lanes along with determining adjacent lanes indicate determine whether an adjacent lane exists outside of the added lane);
determine whether the distance an add point to a split point is greater than a second distance from the distinguished features (FIG. 16; para. [0192]: “then, in step S201, the control state change unit 145 determines, after passing through the specific area, whether or not another specific area is present (for example, similar to or relevant to the having-already-passed specific area) within a re-shift start distance”, wherein the specific areas comprise of an add point to a split point);
mitigate a path by retaining control of a vehicle via an electronic driving system and providing driver notification (FID. 13; FIG. 15; FIG. 16 S104 and S105; para. [0180]: “HMI 70 notifies the vehicle occupant of the shift via an image or speech indicating that “the driving status is shifted to the second driving status because the subject vehicle is approaching an interchange, a junction, or an area with the number of the lanes decreased””), but fails to specifically teach determine a first distance between an added lane or a lane split from the distinguished features.
However, in the same field of endeavor, KONDO teaches determine whether the distance an add point to a split point is greater than a second distance from the distinguished features (FIG. 3; FIG. 4; FIG. 5; FIG. 6; para. [0050]: “For example, the vehicle is required to make a lane change within a short section (e.g. 500 m or less), a large number of other vehicles are traveling in the lane to which a lane change is to be made, or the like”; para. [0070]: “case where it is necessary for the vehicle to change to a different road 52 at a JCT, at which a main lane 51 and the different road 52 are connected to each other as illustrated in FIG. 6, in order to reach a destination location, for example, it is necessary to make a lane change to the left lane. If it is determined that a lane change cannot be made through the automated drive control because […] a section in which the vehicle is required to make a lane change is too short,);
determine whether there are lane markers between the lane add and the lane split from the distinguished features (FIG. 6; FIG. 8; para. [0086]: “For example, in the case where partition lines 58 of all lanes including a lane 57 in which the vehicle travels have disappeared or faded to such a degree that the partition lines 58 cannot be recognized using a camera as illustrated in FIG. 8, the partition lines 58 cannot be recognized using a camera, and the vehicle cannot travel appropriately along the lane 57. Since the reason is not avoidable even if a lane change is made, in addition, travel through the automated drive control cannot be executed in the section in which the partition lines 58 have faded (or disappeared). Thus, audio guidance saying “Automated drive cannot be executed because there is a section in which partition lines have faded ahead. Execute automated drive again after passing through the section” is output from the speaker 16”, wherein the presence if lane marking is checked throughout the driving); and
mitigate a path by providing driver notification to take control of the vehicle (FIG. 3; FIG. 4; para. [0078]: “After that, in S17, the CPU 41 executes processing of interrupting the automated drive control or standing by for switching.”).
YASHIRO and KONDO are analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to determination of whether to continue autonomous driving based on the driving environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of YASHIRO and incorporate the teachings of KONDO and determine whether the vehicle is approaching a section comprising of merging lanes followed by branching lanes. Doing so enhances safety of the operation of autonomous vehicle by determining whether the vehicle can travel appropriately along the lane. YASHIRO in view of KONDO fails to specifically teach distinguish lane adds versus lane splits such that there are distinguished features, determine road geometry features, including curvature and a curvature derivative from the distinguished features and determine whether a lane width at the split point is greater than a third distance from the distinguished features.
However, Eagelberg teaches distinguish lane adds versus lane splits such that there are distinguished features (FIG. 9; para. [0206]: “determining the type of the identified lane mark(s) in step 910 may involve determining a change in lane mark labels and/or lane mark identifies between images. Such a determination may permit processing unit 110 to further determine what type of merge lane (e.g., “merge” merge lane, “merge to” merge lane, or “merge from” merge lane) or what type of split lane (e.g., “split” split lane, “lane open” split lane, or “lane expansion” split lane) is occurring on road 1002.”; para. [0182]: “For instance, referring to FIG. 10A, if the detected lane mark characteristic(s) include a distance between lane marks 1004A and 1004C and/or between lane marks 1004B and 1004C, a decreasing distance between the lane marks may indicate that the lane mark type for lane mark 1004C is a merge lane.”; para. [0216]: “detected lane mark characteristic(s) include, for example, a distance of the at least one identified lane mark to a reference point, such as another mark on the road, using the detected lane mark characteristic(s) to determine a type of the identified lane mark(s) may involve determining whether the distance between the identified lane mark(s) and the reference point is increasing, decreasing, or remaining constant as a distance from the host vehicle increases (e.g., over a distance along the road forward of the host vehicle). For instance, referring to FIG. 12A, if the detected lane mark characteristic(s) include a distance between lane marks 1204A and 1204C and/or between lane marks 1204B and 1204D, an increasing distance between the lane marks may indicate that the lane mark type is a split lane”, wherein lane marks correspond to the distinguished features) and determine road geometry features, including curvature and a curvature derivative from the distinguished features (para. [0180]: “FIG. 10A, the detected lane mark characteristic(s) may include an intersection of lane marks 1004B and 1004C. As still another example, the detected lane mark characteristic(s) may include a change in lateral distance between the at least one identified lane mark and at least one other lane mark of road 1002”; para. [0225]: “For example, if, as shown in FIG. 12A, the road 1202 splits to form an exit lane, and host vehicle 200 is to remain on road 1202, processing unit 110 may identify lane mark 1204A, which is a “host left” lane mark delineating a left edge of the “host lane,” to estimate a curvature of road 1202)”, wherein distance and curvature correspond to road geometry features).
Eagelberg is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of identifying lane addition and splits. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the usage of map information to determine merging and branching points of YASHIRO in view of KONDO with the usage of lane marks of Eagelberg, because they both perform the function of identification of the road characteristics and one could have substituted the mechanisms and the result of the substitution would have been predictable in determining a presence of lane addition or split section ahead. YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg fails to specifically teach determine whether a lane width at the split point is greater than a third distance from the distinguished features.
However, YANG further teaches determine whether a lane width at the split point is greater than a third distance from the distinguished features (FIGs. 2-4; para. [0067]: “when it is determined in S160 that the width of the diverging lane is equal to or less than the first reference value as shown in FIG. 3 , or the inter-lane distance is less than or equal to the second reference value as shown in FIG. 4 , the controller 140 may determine that the width of the lane or inter-lane distance is not secured, and the autonomous driving route cannot be created in a lane in which the width (W) of the lane is less than the first reference value or the inter-lane distance (D) is less than or equal to the second reference value”).
YANG is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of identifying lane splits during autonomous driving mode. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and incorporate the determination of lane width of diverging lanes of YANG. Doing so will enhance safety by avoiding routes which the autonomous driving cannot reliably pass (YANG, para. [0067]). YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and further in view of YANG fails to specifically teach wherein the road geometry features include curvature and a curvature derivative.
However, PARK teaches wherein the road geometry features include curvature and a curvature derivative (FIG. 1 S10; FIG. 2; para. [0010]: “a curvature of lane at the lane-tracking control reference-point, and a reference change-rate, i.e., a change rate of the reference curvature, based on an image captured by a front camera of the vehicle;”; para. [0067]: “Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, a method of estimating curvature of a lane in front of a vehicle according to an embodiment of the disclosure includes the steps of obtaining a reference distance C0, i.e., a vehicle transverse distance from a lane-tracking control reference-point P to a specific portion of a vehicle V, a reference angle C1, i.e., an angle between a first extension line L1 extending from the lane-tracking control reference-point P in a forward direction of the vehicle V and the lane, a reference curvature C2, i.e., the curvature of the lane at the lane-tracking control reference-point P, and a reference change-rate C3, i.e., a change rate of the reference curvature C2 based on an image captured by a front camera CA of the vehicle V (S10);”)
PARK is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to determination of whether to continue autonomous driving based on the driving environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and further in view of YANG and obtain curvature derivative as taught by PARK. Doing so will result in accurate assessment of the curvature of the road, and enhance safety by authority for controlling a steering wheel is transferred to a driver while informing the driver of a dangerous situation in advance, so that the driver can have enough time to properly control the steering wheel (PARK, para. [0090]).
Regarding claim 14, YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and further in view of YANG and further in view of PARK teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which is recorded instructions, wherein execution of the instructions by a processor causes the processor to, of claim 13. KONDO further teaches generate takeover requests for timely ceding control (FIG. 6; para. [0077]: “If it is determined that a lane change cannot be made through the automated drive control because the road 52 is crowded, a section in which the vehicle is required to make a lane change is too short, or the like, audio guidance saying “The vehicle is heading for ◯◯. Automated drive cannot be executed because of the heavy traffic. Change to the left lane.” is output from the speaker 16”).
Regarding claim 15, YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and further in view of YANG and further in view of PARK teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which is recorded instructions, wherein execution of the instructions by a processor causes the processor to, of claim 14. YASHIRO further teaches as an alternative to giving a driver control of the vehicle, retaining control of the vehicle via the electronic driving system (FIG. 16 S104 OR S105; para. [0195]: “if another specific area is not determined to be present within the re-shift start distance, the subject vehicle M can re-shift the driving status thereof to the highest possible level”).
Regarding claim 16, YASHIRO in view of KONDO and further in view of Eagelberg and further in view of YANG and further in view of PARK teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which is recorded instructions, wherein execution of the instructions by a processor causes the processor to, of claim 15. KONDO further teaches rationalize viability of a created trajectory as a maneuver is in progress (para. [0048]: “In S6, the CPU 41 executes processing of determining, on the basis of the various types of information acquired in S1 and S2, whether or not the vehicle is currently in a situation where the automated drive control can be executed.”, wherein determination of whether the action/trajectory can be executed by the autonomous vehicle indicates rationalizing viability of a created trajectory is in progress).
Regarding claim 17, it recites a method claim reciting claim limitations similar to those performed by processor of the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, and therefore is rejected on the same basis. YASHIRO and KONDO further teach mitigating the path by one of: giving a driver control of a vehicle (KONDO para. [0077]: “If it is determined that a lane change cannot be made through the automated drive control because the road 52 is crowded, a section in which the vehicle is required to make a lane change is too short, or the like, audio guidance saying “The vehicle is heading for ◯◯. Automated drive cannot be executed because of the heavy traffic. Change to the left lane.” is output from the speaker 16”); and retaining control of the vehicle via an electronic driving system (YASHIRO FIG. 16 S104 and S105; para. [0179]: “If, in step S102, the subject vehicle M is determined to have entered the specific area or, if, in step S103, the subject vehicle M is determined to be traveling in the position a predetermined distance short of the specific area, the subject vehicle M shifts the driving status thereof to the second driving status in step S104 and the processing of the flowchart terminates”).
Regarding claim 18, it recites a method claim reciting claim limitations similar to those performed by processor of the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 19, it recites a method claim reciting claim limitations similar to those performed by processor of the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 14, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 20, it recites a method claim reciting claim limitations similar to those performed by processor of the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
OKUYAMA (US20200283027A1) teaches determining, at a point located at a predetermined distance or more before the high difficulty point, which comprises of a point where the planned travel route set by the navigation system 20 requires a lane change.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 5PM.
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, James J Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/ANDREW SANG KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668