Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues: “First, claim 1 requires determining, from S upstream lanes and T downstream lanes at the road junction, the first upstream lane and the first downstream lane based on a connection priority, wherein S and T are positive integers, and wherein the connection priority is determined based on at least one of a service priority, a lane change association relationship, or a traffic flow and entering an instruction to the vehicle control apparatus to perform an operation on the M virtual lane lines, wherein the operation comprises the unified scheduling of the plurality of vehicles at the road junction based on the M virtual lane lines. Claims 11 and 15 contain similar limitations. The Examiner asserts that obtaining K lane pairs from the S upstream lanes and the T downstream lanes, wherein each of the K lane pairs comprises one of the S upstream lanes and one of the T downstream lanes, and wherein a preset topological relationship exists between the one of the S upstream lanes and the one of the T downstream lanes in each lane pair; determining a connection priority of each of the K lane pairs; and determining the first upstream lane and the first downstream lane based on the connection priority of each of the K lane pairs is disclosed by paragraphs [0159] and [0221] of Han. See Office Action dated January 23, 2026, p. 3-4. While Han describes right- of-way priority at intersections, in particular, which vehicle has priority when the paths of two vehicles conflict, Han does not describe determining, from S upstream lanes and T downstream lanes at the road junction, the first upstream lane and the first downstream lane based on a connection priority, wherein S and T are positive integers, and wherein the connection priority is determined based on at least one of a service priority, a lane change association relationship, or a traffic flow and entering an instruction to the vehicle control apparatus to perform an operation on the M virtual lane lines, wherein the operation comprises the unified scheduling of the plurality of vehicles at the road junction based on the M virtual lane lines:
[Applicant here quotes Han [0081], [0082], and [0221].]
As shown above, Han does not describe a connection priority. Instead, Han describes a right-of-way priority at intersections, for example, in a T-junction, lanes originating on the through road may have higher priority and in a 2-way stop, the lanes not controlled by stop signs may have higher priority. Han addresses which vehicle gets to proceed first when paths conflict, not which lane pairs to select for generating virtual lane lines based on service priority, lane change association relationships, or traffic flow as required by claim 1. Moreover, Han does not describe unified scheduling of a plurality of vehicles. Instead, Han describes that each vehicle's control module 225 may be configured to determine the control signals that may be sent to the vehicle controls 130 of the corresponding vehicle 150 based on the plan. In other words, the vehicle controls itself based on the received map data, which is distributed, individual vehicle control rather than centralized unified scheduling of movements of multiple vehicles at a road junction as required by claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees in part. In paragraph [0214], Han teaches that the system automatically connects upstream and downstream lanes sequentially based on priority, such as first joining lane connections through an intersection that allow going straight, where giving high priority to straight connects reads on the connection priority is determined based on…a traffic flow. Similarly, paragraph [0214] describes not joining lanes if there are more “originating” lanes going into an intersection than there are “destination” lanes, such that there is a merge, and “the system may trigger an error and abort”, where such de-prioritization (aborting) reads on the connection priority is determined based on…a lane change association relationship.
However, Examiner concedes that Han does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle control apparatus is configured to perform unified scheduling of a plurality of vehicles at the road junction and wherein the operation comprises the unified scheduling of the plurality of vehicles at the road junction based on the M virtual lane lines.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210001877 by Han et al. (hereinafter “Han”), further in view of further in view of US20240371264 by Budan et al. (hereinafter “Budan”).
Regarding claim 1, Han teaches A method, comprising: obtaining an electronic map, wherein the electronic map comprises a road junction that comprises a first upstream lane and a first downstream lane with a vehicle having a vehicle type traveling from the first upstream lane to the first downstream lane; see for example paragraphs [0120] or [0157], where the system is aware of a topological change in the road network, such as an intersection. See also paragraph [0066], where the system transmits the HD map data to vehicles. See also paragraph [0082], where the control module considers physical constraints of the make and model of the vehicle.
determining, from S upstream lanes and T downstream lanes at the road junction, the first upstream lane and the first downstream lane based on a connection priority, wherein S and T are positive integers, and wherein the connection priority is determined based on at least one of a service priority, a lane change association relationship, or a traffic flow; see for example paragraph [0214], where the system automatically connects upstream and downstream lanes based on priority, such as first joining lane connections through an intersection that allow going straight, where giving high priority to straight connects reads on the connection priority is determined based on…a traffic flow. Similarly, paragraph [0214] describes not joining lanes if there are more “originating” lanes going into an intersection than there are “destination” lanes, such that there is a merge, and “the system may trigger an error and abort”; where such de-prioritization reads on the connection priority is determined based on…a lane change association relationship.
generating, based on the vehicle type, M virtual lane lines between the first upstream lane and the first downstream lane, wherein the M virtual lane lines are for updating the electronic map, and wherein M is an integer greater than or equal to 1; see for example paragraph [0159], where the system can generate lane connectors through an intersection. See also paragraph [0198], where the system generates lane line connectivity based on physical constraints of the vehicle “(e.g., large trucks may not be physically able to complete turns from certain lanes).”
displaying the M virtual lane lines; see for example paragraph [0228], where the system can display lane line connectivity to a user.
transmitting the electronic map to a vehicle control apparatus of the vehicle, see for example paragraph [0066], where the system transmits the HD map data to vehicles, and paragraphs [0081]-[0082], where the vehicle controls itself based on the received map data.
and entering an instruction to the vehicle control apparatus to perform an operation on the M virtual lane lines, See again paragraphs [0081]-[0082], where the vehicle controls itself based on the received map data.
Han does not explicitly teach the vehicle control apparatus is configured to perform unified scheduling of a plurality of vehicles at the road junction; and entering an instruction to the vehicle control apparatus to perform an operation on the M virtual lane lines, wherein the operation comprises the unified scheduling of the plurality of vehicles at the road junction based on the M virtual lane lines.
However, Budan teaches the vehicle control apparatus is configured to perform unified scheduling of a plurality of vehicles at the road junction; and entering an instruction to the vehicle control apparatus to perform an operation on the M virtual lane lines, wherein the operation comprises the unified scheduling of the plurality of vehicles at the road junction based on the M virtual lane lines. See for example paragraphs [0052] and [0079], where vehicles crossing the intersection send their arrival time and path to the intersection control agent so that the agent can schedule the vehicle’s traversal of the intersection amidst a sequence of other vehicles passing through the intersection.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to have modified the lane generation system of Han with the intersection scheduling of Budan with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to make lanes and use them in scheduling safe intersection traversal, improving the safety of the intersection by conducting the vehicles’ crossing of it while also improving traffic flow efficiency.
Claims 11 and 15 have similar limitations to claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Han teaches wherein generating the M virtual lane lines comprises: generating the M virtual lane lines between the first upstream lane and the first downstream lane based on at least one of a preset vehicle motion characteristic or a driving environment. See for example paragraph [0159], where the system can generate multiple lane connectors through an intersection.
Claim 16 has similar limitations to claim 2 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Han teaches wherein at least two of the M virtual lane lines have different presentation manners, and wherein the different presentation manners comprise: the at least two of the M virtual lane lines have different colors. See for example paragraphs [0165] or [0199]-[0203], where different lane elements, types, and boundaries are displayed in different colors.
Claims 12 and 18 have similar limitations to claim 4 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 5, Han teaches further comprising outputting first information, wherein the first information indicates second information about at least one of the M virtual lane lines, and wherein the second information comprises at least one of: a right of way of the at least one of the M virtual lane lines; or physical information of the at least one of the M virtual lane lines. See for example paragraph [0216], where “In some embodiments, the system may model and automate right of ways for common intersection types. The model may be used for navigation of autonomous vehicles. Right of way may be important for an autonomous vehicle to determine while navigating. Determining right of way can be sometimes be difficult even for human drivers. The system may enumerate all possible pairs of turn lanes at an intersection. For each pair of turn lanes at an intersection: (1) the system may evaluate if the pair of turns lanes overlap spatially (e.g., determine whether vehicles driving on the pair of turns lanes can collide, with example pairs highlighted in yellow in the user interface of FIG. 31), and (2) if there is a possibility of collision, the system may provide the information via a user interface to a user (e.g., to arbitrate a relative priority (an enum with values: high, low, equal) between them, with the one with higher priority having the right of way)” (emphasis added).
Claims 13 and 19 have similar limitations to claim 5 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 6, Han teaches wherein the first upstream lane or the first downstream lane is a first operation lane comprising an operation location or a production device of the vehicle. See again paragraph [0193], where a lane can have characteristics such as “bus lane”, “slow”, etc., where such control instructions read on operation[s]. Similarly, see paragraph [0105]-[0106] describing lane restrictions and control signage (like speed limits), where such lane characteristics read on operation[s] related to location[s] (changing speed according to the stop or speed limit sign locations) or related to a production device of the first vehicle, where production devices can include, e.g., its engine for producing propulsion, its route planning system for producing a route, etc.
Claims 14 and 20 have similar limitations to claim 6 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 7, Han teaches a method further comprising: step 21: determining, from the S upstream lanes and the T downstream lanes at the first road junction, a to-be-connected upstream lane and a to-be-connected downstream lane that have a topological relationship, wherein the to-be-connected upstream lane or the to-be- connected downstream lane is a second operation lane; see again for example paragraph [0159], where the system can generate lane connectors through an intersection.
step 22: determining whether the to-be-connected upstream lane and the to-be- connected downstream lane form a target connection lane pair, wherein the to-be-connected upstream lane and the to-be-connected downstream lane form the target connection lane pair when a second vehicle having a preset vehicle motion characteristic can travel from the to-be- connected upstream lane to the to-be-connected downstream lane within a range of the road junction; again, lanes are connected through the intersection [0159], and a vehicle can traverse from the entrance to the exit lane through an intersection, as described in paragraph [0066], where the system transmits the HD map data to vehicles, and paragraphs [0081]-[0082], where the vehicle controls itself based on the received map data. The transfer from the entrance to the exit lane of the intersection is done within the intersection, reading on within a range of the road junction.
and step 23: setting the to-be-connected upstream lane as the first upstream lane and setting the to-be-connected downstream lane as the first downstream lane when the to-be-connected upstream lane and the to-be-connected downstream lane form the target connection lane pair. The system connects lanes [0159] for the vehicle to traverse through the intersection. See, e.g., Fig. 29.
Regarding claim 8, Han teaches a method further comprising: updating lane type information of the road junction when the to-be-connected upstream lane and the to-be-connected downstream lane do not form the target connection lane pair, wherein updating the lane type information comprises: updating a first lane type of the to-be-connected upstream lane and a second lane type of the to-be-connected downstream lane from an operation lane to a non-operation lane; and re-performing step 21, step 22, and step 23. See for example paragraph [0227], where “if the top ranked predefined lane connectivity template does not match the intersection, the method 3500 may further include creating a new predefined lane connectivity template based on the actual lane connectivity for the intersection.” See also paragraph [0098], where the map data may be updated due to changes to the lane information due to signage changes or construction, or paragraph [0157], where the map can update speed limit sign changes. Depending on the exact change, this would change the “operation” (control) status of the lane, e.g. by adding or removing a stop sign, for example.
Claims 21 and 22 have similar limitations to claims 7 and 8 above combined, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 9, Han teaches a method further comprises comprising: partitioning a target range in which at least one of the S upstream lanes or the T downstream lanes is adjacent to the road junction; and re-performing step 21, step 22, and step 23 based on the first road junction obtained through the partitioning. See again for example paragraph [0159], where the system can connect predecessor and successor lanes to an intersection, where such connecting of adjacent lanes reads on partition[ed] lanes.
Regarding claim 10, Han teaches a method further comprising: obtaining K lane pairs from the S upstream lanes and the T downstream lanes, wherein each of the K lane pairs comprises one of the S upstream lanes and one of the T downstream lanes, and wherein a preset topological relationship exists between the one of the S upstream lanes and the one of the T downstream lanes in each lane pair; determining the connection priority of each of the K lane pairs; and determining the first upstream lane and the first downstream lane based on the connection priority of each of the K lane pairs. See again for example paragraph [0159], where the system can connect predecessor and successor lanes to an intersection. See also for example paragraph [0221], where the system can connect lanes based on a priority of their relationship.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20180218600 by Fujita teaching determining lane connections and sequencing.
US20130282357 by Rubin et al. teaching a V2V intersection coordination system, where vehicles have to agree on lane designations.
US20190111930 by Katsura et al. teaching lane priority and scheduling at an intersection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights